Author: Djordje Vidanovic
Date: 09:57:28 11/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 16, 2003 at 12:45:38, Andreas Guettinger wrote: >I think I can see his point. > >The development of good evalutaion functions for opening positions and engame >positions might suffer because of the availability of opening books and endgame >tablebases. >Why should a engine be able to understand an opening position and have all the >knowledge about developing pieces and strategies for the game? It plays out of >the book anyway most of the time. > >One important reason: because it might be out off the book. :) > > >regards >andy I don't think that you have a point here. Just let _any_ of the top engines play a game without any opening book. They will most likely, from what I've seen, come up with good theoretically sound moves. The same applies to endgames. You will find top engines to be very good endgame players, without any tablebases. This all applies even to middle-of-the-road engines which may prove to be just as sound in their selection of opening moves and endgame strategies. Djordje
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.