Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:00:53 11/27/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2004 at 06:10:42, Günther Simon wrote: >On November 27, 2004 at 03:20:55, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On November 27, 2004 at 00:06:43, Peter Darin wrote: >> >>>ya but do u think u can get fair result by using Slowchess Book which is not >>>that good. Instead using differant book might help give u the correct picture of >>>Engine's Strength. >>> >>>Regards >>> >>>Peter >> >>You can get totally fair result. >>books is part of the package that you test. >> >>I also think that books are overestimated and the proof is >>List that comes with no book >> >>Tests when List used the nunn positions(no book for both sides) showed the >>following results: >> >>http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/ratingnunn0309.txt >>see http://freehosting.hostrave.com/p/iggor/nil/NIL7_rat.txt >> >>I know that a lot of varaibles are different(not same time control not same >>opponents but it still seems that if there is no problem of losing the same >>opening again and again books are not very important). >> >>Uri > >But the Nunn positions _are_ like a book. You cannot say both using >Nunn positions is like both using no book! That's completely wrong. > >Guenther I do not say it is the same My point is that the result of List when it has no book against opponents that have book is good in the infinite loop when the result of List when both use the same book(nunn positions) are not better and even worse. I also do not know of tests when list used some external book and performed clearly better than the results in the infinite loop when it is using no book against books of the opponent. 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.