Author: martin fierz
Date: 05:40:00 09/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 22, 2004 at 07:53:38, Drexel,Michael wrote: >On September 22, 2004 at 06:56:45, martin fierz wrote: > >>[snip] >> >>>>it's definitely not nonsense. i agree that the engine won't find a better (or >>>>the best according to the book), but a weak engine will make real blunders in >>>>the opening while a strong engine might just play a slightly inferior move. >>> >>>Strong engines don´t just play slightly inferior moves in the opening. >>>They play often complete nonsense without book. >>>I think we have discussed enough examples here in the past. >> >>of course - but you are guilty of selective perception. > >I´m not guilty of anything. >I was referring to: >"If the engine is strong enough to find better moves by itself then opening book >is not needed". >Engines generally won´t find better moves by itself than Top GMs in home >preparation. No matter how strong they get. >The opening book is needed as long as engines have no clue about long term >strategies. >Some simple development rules are not enough since there exist by far too many >exceptions. > >you have noted the >>examples discussed here. if you took 1000 opening positions from somewhere, and >>looked which moves GMs play, i believe that strong engines would play the same >>moves very often (ie. 80-95%). weak engines on the other hand... > >I also played 80-95% GM moves in the past. >Unfortunately the 5-20% "non-GM moves" made the difference. duh! your 5-20% are probably real blunders. top engines will not play serious blunders that often... cheers martin
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.