Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 16:05:38 09/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 22, 2004 at 17:12:45, George Tsavdaris wrote: >On September 22, 2004 at 10:41:24, Drexel,Michael wrote: > >>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... >> >>Of course they will. >>There are serious strategical blunders and serious tactical blunders. >>Without books top engines make many serious blunders in the opening. >> > >True, but the following is true also: >"Without books top human GM's (will) make many serious blunders in the opening." > > All human GM's use the hundreds years of experience, that the previous games of >top GM's has given us. Do you think if a 2700 human GM wouldn't know the >previous theory that he would play good opening moves? A human chessplayer simply never plays without "book" in classical chess. The discussion is about importance of opening books for the engines. > >>Michael
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.