Author: Georg v. Zimmermann
Date: 16:10:37 11/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
The book is part of the engine. But let us agree to disagree there for a moment. What other problems are there with your approach ? One other problem is that you would be testing the analysing strength, not the playing strength of the engines. Why is that ? Suppose you have one engine which really likes open games, therefore hates 1.d4 with white for example or 1.e4 c6 as black. When you now force it to play 1.d4 in maybe 40% of the games, it will perform poorly as opposed to an engine that does comparably well in open and closed games. This performing poorly will show you the bad analysing skills (since it doesnt understand closed positions), but will give you wrong information about playing skills (since it in "a real match" would have never allowed itself to get into such a position). Best regards, Georg On November 15, 2003 at 17:47:04, Eye Witness wrote: > Though some do, i do not consider the opening book really apart of a >program(meaning the engine), i consider it a seperate piece of software in the >package with a program. Most people here are really concerned with the engines >playing strength, and the engines ability to select correct moves. If all progs >had the same opening book to start, this would more clearly indicate the >strength of the chess program. I do not in anyway support matches with no >opening book, as some opening knowledge is apart of chess,and even the most rank >of tournament chess player has some type of opening book knowledge. It seems >better to judge the programs analytical ability than to judge its preparation. >It seems also that programmers would prefer this to see this so that they can >know that there program is losing or winning matches, not because of bad book, >but because of good or bad engine programming
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.