Author: Tony Nichols
Date: 02:41:12 04/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 2005 at 09:08:02, Mathieu Pagé wrote: >On April 22, 2005 at 05:46:30, Tony Nichols wrote: > >>I didn't say it was cheating. I just think that if we want to know the true >>strength of programs we should eliminate the opening books. > >And if we really want to know the speed of a formula 1 car we should remove is >engine and ask the pilot to tush the car ? > >Opening book is part of the chess engine as the engine is part of the formula >one car. > >If I ever released my engine, I'll code some routines avoiding him to play >without is book, so no one will be able to make him play without it, maybe then >they will realise that it is an not optional part of it. > >Same thing for the learning by the way. I remember someone telling here that he >was testing crafty without learning and Dr Hyatt told him he was not really >testing Crafty, but "Crafty without learning". I share this opinion. > >Mathieu Pagé Hi, Mathieu I still disagree. Opening books are not an integral part of the engine. If they were they would not be interchangeable. People would not constantly create new books for all engines and engines would not be in lost or winning positions before they calculated their first move. An opening book is one part of a chess program. In mho the least interesting part, followed by endgame tablebases. As a chess player myself I take advantage of both these parts of the program but I do not confuse it with the actual playing part of the program. The meat and potatoes is the engine. This is the gift that programmers give us! I have many books on my shelf about openings. Not one can push a pawn. I want to repeat that I don't think it's cheating. I just think it's like having a spelling contest with a word processor?! Regards Tony
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.