Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 21:53:18 04/10/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 10, 2001 at 13:27:26, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>On April 10, 2001 at 11:08:44, Ralf Elvsén wrote:
>
>>On April 09, 2001 at 15:20:08, Bertil Eklund wrote:
>>
>>>On April 09, 2001 at 13:53:02, John Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>>Under the about taskbar icon, credit is given to Richard Lang. I'm not sure
>>>>where the gentleman in a previous post came up with the "cracked by..."
>>>>information.
>>>>
>>>>Very strong prog. Stronger than my Nimzo 732 or Hiarcs 732 in preliminary
>>>>testing. Primitive GUI coupled with tiny hash table, give it a retro look.
>>>>
>>>>But it is strong.
>>>
>>>Hi!
>>>
>>>You can use 32mb hashtables, not to bad. It can compete rather well in blitz but
>>>in 2h/40 it is another story.
>>>
>>>Bertil
>>
>>In the first game I played against it it gave away a pawn for nothing
>>in a dead drawn pawn endgame, so I won easily. "What a piece of junk"
>>I thought. Then I lost five games in a row...
>>
>>Is it weak in endgames? Otherwise I thought it had an "elegant" style.
>>Hard to put the finger on, but it was very fun to play.
>>
>>Ralf
>
>At the time it was considered to be strong in endgames.
>
>bruce
Genius 2 and up are definitely extremely strong in the endgames.
A nightmare for any chess programmer who wants to test his creature.
However it will be difficult to show it if the DOS version cannot use more than
320Kb of memory as I have read somewhere. Or you have to limit the size of the
opponent's HT to the same value, just to be fair.
Christophe
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.