Author: Christopher Conkie
Date: 10:53:50 06/16/05
Go up one level in this thread
But they should Uri or they are not......absolutely not "chess engines". I could make a "chess engine" that only knows how each piece moves therefore and could hope or in the case of chessbase format engines RELY on the GUI to implement the rules. Also there is the small matter of my not believing that proper rule validation is to the detrement of the performance of the engine. If you don't have to validate......you are at an advantage and that in the WCCC 2005 is oh so important. I have seen no Chessbase author defend their position(s)...... Please excuse the pun...... Or for that matter anyone to do with Chessbase argue their case on their behalf...... Like I said......so far it is no contest......the honest people win outright. This is akin to Fools Mate and I am no fool. Look at Crafty. Did Bob not realise that his own engine did not implement the rules completely. It only took 20 versions as well...... :-) He just said yes, it's wrong and fixed it. I don't get it......how hard can it be to implement the rules so that engines can be proven to play chess standalone without help. There is a reason that Chessbase engines don't......and I have found it out. I doubt they like this publicity and I will continue until I recieve a satifactory answer from them. Simple as that. :-) Christopher
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.