Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 14:27:15 03/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2001 at 11:51:32, Fernando Villegas wrote: >The base for comparison was the sheer good perfomance of Gandalf in Paderborn >comnpared with what I was testing myself with my games. That is a nonsensical comparison. You're can't make sensible conclusions comparing computer chess games between programs that you know nothing about and the games you're playing within the confines of your home. It sounds more like the usual need to get something better than what you have already. Nothing wrong with that, everyone feels that way at times. The related antics of yours weren't necessary IMO. >You can compare yourself H version and the others. It is very clear. And I am >thankful it is so. That answer was forseeable even without the aid of vodoo magic. Very much in tune with the feeling of contentment caused by getting the item that was missing. Until the next time... However, I've received this list of changes from Steen: Major stuff: 1) Learning rewritten. 2) Evaluation tuning of positions with bishops of opposite colors. Small stuff: The "bug" found in Paderborn round 1 and some minor tuning of the endgame search. Somehow I doubt that these changes have affected the style in a revolutionary way. But maybe it's the proverbial butterfly of chaos theory in action. Regards, Mogens
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.