Author: stuart taylor
Date: 04:54:53 12/31/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 31, 1999 at 00:30:41, Aaron Tay wrote: >On December 30, 1999 at 22:58:30, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On December 30, 1999 at 22:27:43, hgkjhg wrote: >>[snip] >>> >>>may be programs shouldn't rely on their books so much. They should use only >>>solid lines and if they're truly the best, the results will show that. > > >Isn't the Nunn's Test like what you proposed? Remove the opening books and make >the programs play from standard opening positions..Similar to your idea of >having a program that can score 50% or more from all types of openings.. > >But it seems to me that even this is a little artifical, in real Life you don't >insist that Kasparov score 50% over Anand from VARIOUS open,closed whatever >opening to say that Kasparov is better than Anand.. Yes, that's exactly the problem with human (or any)competitive chess.) Opening theory has recently been an unwanted part of chess competition. Even the great opening expert of his time-Bobby Fisher-felt it was a regretable necesity in inventing shuffle chess. But I see no reason why computer programs can't be tested without their opening books also-testing for skill-in laboratory. Youre not abusing any abusable entity. Also, computer programs probably are affected by opening books more so than humans are. I was not concerning myself with chess competition and rating lists, in my original message-here. Stuart Taylor> >Of course if Kasparov could do that Great..But I think no one not even Kasparov >is that Good with a "Universal" style that suits all openings..What more a mere >computer program...
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.