Author: Peter Darin
Date: 20:44:59 11/28/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2004 at 03:20:55, Uri Blass wrote: >List is only 41 elo better than aristarch. > >If books are important you can expect List with no book to perform clearly worse >than Aristarch but it turns out that list is 73 elo better than Aristarch and >279 elo better than Ktulu5.1 when list does not use book and aristarch and ktulu >use books: Which books were Aristarch and Ktulu using? Also it can be because of the Bad lines in their books. List is far superior to Ktulu so Book or no Book List will win. I m not saying that Books are important but while testing if u r using two Books which r not comparable (CM's own Book vs Slowchess Own Book) there is always the danger that the result sometimes depends upon the bad lines in one book or better lines in another. Instead I thought similar to u that with Cm (No Book) vs Slowchess(No Book) slowchess would perform better. It is always better to test without using book. As I think Books are meant for End Users and for playing in Computer Chess Tournaments only. > >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). U r right but also this problem is still (problem of losing the same >opening again and again ) there. Using no Book is the best solution as even though we might get Bad Opening Play but it gives a much better analysis of the Differant Engine's Strength and weakness.
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.