Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 07:55:46 09/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 22, 2004 at 08:40:00, martin fierz wrote: >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 Kurt Utzinger did a test of some strong commercial engines without book a while back. The results were pretty ugly if I remember correctly :( anthony
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.