Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:17:50 11/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 12, 2000 at 01:39:07, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On November 11, 2000 at 21:30:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 11, 2000 at 18:36:22, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On November 11, 2000 at 18:22:44, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>> >>>>wrong >>> >>>I remember that you were one of the people who proved that hiarcs has king >>>safety problems by posting games that hiarcs7.32 lost against chess system tal >>>by king attack. >>> >>>Uri >> >>Thorsten changes his opinion more frequently than the wind direction changes >>at the North Pole. > >this is important if you want to combine all new data with the old data. >hiarcs7.32 has not changed for a while why new programs have been on the market. >in the moment it is not anymore state-of-the-art because others have come >later. > >but at its own time, hiarcs7.32 was not that bad, the dos version was IMO >better, >but nevertheless, the program contained a lot of knowledge bob. Never denied that. But it had king safety problems. This was discussed here in the past. Against aggressive programs and against aggressive humans. Being "old" doesn't mean it goes from being good at king safety to bad at king safety. That is an "age-neutral" characteristic. >mark always tried to bring much knowledge into the program. >i liked this. So did I. But like all program authors, he overlooked something important because auto-playing against computers doesn't show it to be a problem if computers don't attack. > >on the other hand hiarcs always had the problem to come deeper. >it was very optimized for longer-time-controls. > >the problem with hiarcs is imo as with cstal: the search would need >a few state-of-the-art techniques to help the knowledge part of the program. > I totally disagree. I think its search works _extremely_ well. >if you never change your opinion when new data comes and time goes by, >you will not be able to reevaluate reality and you will not change your >opinion, bob. > >you have to recalibrate again and again. >if not - you lose the feeling of what is real and stay in some >old point of view about the world. "recalibrate" is not what you are doing here. You once said it was "great" and now say it is "not", with respect to king safety. Just means one of those two opinions was wrong, because the program hasn't changed.
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.