Author: David H. McClain
Date: 04:54:11 01/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 2004 at 05:46:05, Sandro Necchi wrote: >Hi, > >this is interesting, but testing one program against another one giving selected >positions does not give a true figure of the programs strenght, in my opinion. > >The reason why I have been working so long, and still am, on the books is that >some programs like some positions and do not like others. This is why even the >best program cannot play best in all positions and one needs to have at least >the best 4 (in my opinion) if using them to test/check positions to get the most >from chess programs. > >If the selected positions are more suiting the style of one program than the >other chess program than the first one may win, but the real test (to me) is to >test them with their own books as the opening book is part of the program; a >very important part. To test with a different book and/or with a book we should >not use the same name as well as it would be like test the Ferrari with the >engine made for another car or a different shape...it is not the Ferrari >anymore... > >This is my opionion based on my experience. > >Sandro Sandro, You may think this is crazy but I tried and used the Hirarcs book available for download on Chessbase.com with Shredder 7. For about 5 to 7 games Shredder played spectacularly then after that it was a disaster and I have stopped using it. I don't know what this proves, if anything, except that I enjoy delving into wildly experimental deviations and parameters. And I certainly didn't play enough games to draw any conclusions but I enjoy experimenting like this however unorthodox it may be. It may also lean somewhat to your conclusions about using alternative "books" not specific to engines. DHM
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.