Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:15:24 11/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 2000 at 19:09:23, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On November 10, 2000 at 12:05:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>Did this attack work? or did it fail? You claim Crafty was lucky to draw >>because GT couldn't find Qe7. Is this not _exactly_ the excuse you used each >>time CSTal lost a game? It reached a won position, but couldn't win it? >> >>Sounds like more of the same to me... > >I really wonder if somebody - somehow - can ever lose his professor title. >If this would be possible, i would ask them to do it with you, sorry. >do you really believe that your behaviour or points concerning discussing >this game have anything to do with computerchess ? You made the silly statement. I only asked if you are going to _continue_ to make this same excuse. When the attack works, you say "see here... it worked.". When it fails, you say "see here, if we had more time it would have worked." Using that methodology of evaluation, sure it is _always_ good. >I wonder why you do computerchess when in fact you don't understand >logic at all. I also wonder why you try to debate when you have no idea how to make a point? You posted the game. I looked at the scores. I ran a couple of positions to try to get my scores since you didn't include those. I then commented. There is another game here where Crafty was +5, GT was 0, guess who was right in _that_ game? Or is that yet another "more time and it would have won?" > >is gambit-tiger (the same program that won 2 championships in a row - only >a few weeks ago - know especially known here in this newsgroup) >a weak program ? So do you think gambit-tiger FAILS and i would need an excuse ? >Did it lose the game against crafty ? it won. Did it win because of the attack? Which failed? Or because it just happened to reach an endgame which it won? I have posted games where the opposite happened. So what? The point is "Is the speculation right, or is it a bit much?" That is mainly based on opinion, to be sure. But it _can_ be discussed by people that play chess themselves. I do this. I looked at the position around move 39 and tried to find things that would produce that +3 score. I enumerated them. And I then pointed out why they were wrong in that position. I gave details. I get hand-waving and rhetoric in response. >All you have to make such a noise is: the attack dropped down, gambit-tiger >oversaw a move and had to win the endgame. >and ? the score in move 39 was accurate. cause others have the same score. Look at the other game posted today. See if _other_ programs agree with you _there_. Then come back and talk more... >only dump programs (i don't name the program !!!) score less. >hiarcs and cstal need more time to see the same as gambit-tiger sees. >therefore they do not play the move instantly with the right evaluation. >even when gambit-tiger plays Kh1 the game is not to be won for black IMO. >it lost the right move in the line after Kh1. i see no problem in this. >you ? > >i give up bob. i wish you warm days, where people remember what you have >done for computerchess. and for the future i would advise you to buy >hiarcs (if you want to learn something), or even gambit-tiger. I'm doing just fine, thank you. I plan on continuing to do "just fine" for years, I hope... > >and for your own progress, you should better follow christophe's advise, >and use 8 cpu's instead of 1. or maybe - to be on the save side with crafty, >better use 16 cpu's before you try to win. I think you will find I am doing just fine with 4. > >it's unbelievable. you would not accept seeing different approaches even >if we would pin them on your eyes ! you don't want to see. >and therefore : you don't see . Wrong. You don't want me to see. So you believe that I don't. But don't try to convince me you _know_ what I see or don't see. I don't think you (or anybody) is that good. Except for the women on 1-900-psychic > >which you a nice and warm winter where "you have your days" , sir ! > >and maybe on day: the american people have counted their votes (hahaha!!) >and you know EXACTLY who is president. >it seems you BOTH have the same paradigm, and you get it by counting, >counting, counting. don't you know that the whole world is laughing about >the banana-democracy USA ? Continue to laugh from your third-rate country. Which country is the most powerful nation on the planet? Which is the wealthiest? And you laugh at us? :) You send your kids to our schools, to work in our land of opportunity? And you laugh at us? Or maybe are you laughing at yourself? > >unbelievable. > >so - now you can throw me out as nice as you always do it with >chris. > >throw them out, then mr. bob hyatt does not need to read the truth >about chess programming. I don't throw anybody out. I asked him to post as himself. I have not gotten a response. I assume that means "no thanks". Which is his choice. If you want to be thrown out, just log out and don't come back. Nobody forces any of us to stay here. > > > > >> >> >> >>> >>>gambit-tiger HAS a fast search. and you see that it has an effect, quite >>>positive... >> >>Not in this attack, which was my point. >> >> >>> >>> >>>>I certainly don't mind discussing this, but handwaving, shouting, going off- >>>>topic don't convince me of anything. IE discussion about reality, old paradigm, >>>>new paradigm, Newton, and so forth does nothing to make any point you want to >>>>make. >>> >>>i gave you a game and score and position. you call this handwaving ? shouting ? >>>off-topic ??? oh bob - this is computerchess. it's about chess done by >>>computers. the game i do discuss (or try to - it seems impossible to do with you >>>because you behave little blind) with you is on topic because it demonstrates >>>something. and the fact HOW you discuss it shows WHY you are uncapable to make >>>any progress concerning this issue. >>> >>>>It doesn't do this. It follows the path its search, its q-search, and its >>>>evaluation says is optimal according to the terms in the evaluation. It >>>>doesn't know squat about "into the fog". That is nonsense. It is _still_ >>>>a normal "bean-counter" type program. The shape/size of the beans is different, >>>>but that is _all_ that is different. You can try to cast it in the image of >>>>CSTal if you want. But it isn't. >>> >>>aha. ok. if you say it. it must be true :-) >> >>As opposed to "If _you_ say it, it must be true?" I trust the programmer's >>comments. He said it was eval differences _only_. If you disagree, argue >>with him, not with me. >> >> >> >>> >>>>Then shouldn't I have gotten smothered in the attack? >>> >>>right. >> >>I didn't, so? >> >> >>> >>>>You give lots of credit to "luck". But as I said before, If you drive into >>>>heavy fog, you are as likely to have a major wreck as you are likely to make >>>>it through the short-cut before your opponent, who takes it more cautiously. >>> >>>>Anybody is blind in the fog. You miss that point every time. Unless you wear >>>>infra-red goggles. Then there is no fog at all. >>> >>>not anyone. >>>some programs are specialized because they have knowledge crafty hasn't. >> >>The inverse is _also_ true. I have given examples here already of this.
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.