Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 14:15:33 11/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 16, 2003 at 12:57:28, Djordje Vidanovic wrote:
>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
Absolutely.
Personally I have never stopped working on improving the opening and endgame
play.
I will most certainly never remove endgame knowledge because of endgame
databases: I want Chess Tiger to be able to run on computers that do not have
the required storage capacity (PDAs, phones...).
The same applies to openings.
So I don't see the point in question. It exists only in the imagination of the
poster.
Christophe
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.