Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 12:10:04 12/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 2003 at 13:54:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 12, 2003 at 12:42:17, Omid David Tabibi wrote: > >>On December 12, 2003 at 11:24:26, Georg v. Zimmermann wrote: >> >>>Exactly, and thats why you should write your own book routine, instead of using >>>part of a commercial package. >> >>I don't see any problems with this. By using the opening book feature of Fritz >>or Shredder, you are merely avoiding a waste of time on something already >>implemented. The big issue is hand tuning the created book, which makes the >>difference between shredder.bok and falcon.bok :) > >You are overlooking the difficulty of choosing a book line also. There are >lots of things to consider. How often it was played, how did the side on >move do in the resulting games, how recent was the opening played or is it an >old move that might have a refutation, etc. > >I've written book code. It takes a lot of time. Not to mention the >learning facilities that you get for free with the Fritz GUI. Which is >yet another important piece of code that you get to avoid writing. > You can similarly argue that everyone should write his own endgame tablebases. As it also takes a lot of time, and is much harder than opening book. > >> >> >>> >>>Georg >>> >>> >>>> >>>>I totally disagree with you about this. IMO opening book is one of the most >>>>important parts of the program. Look at the games in Graz, many games were >>>>already decided after the opening phase... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Uri
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.