Author: Duncan Stanley
Date: 10:59:32 04/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 2001 at 13:36:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 19, 2001 at 12:22:43, Duncan Stanley wrote: > >>On April 19, 2001 at 11:48:08, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>> >>>OK, let's see if somebody can come up with a decent solution to this problem. >>>Please, show me that you are not all deeply asleep and try to find creative >>>solution(s). There are actually many ways to solve the problem. >>> >>> >> >>Please teecher !!! Can I answer !!! >> >>Modify the eval() and the search() a little by date/time to give another style. >> >>Can I go to the top of the class now ??? > >This could work. But is it worth it? And doesn't it _really_ show just how >stupid the overall match idea is? IE would I _really_ want to either (a) >write multiple evaluations that change based on the date; (b) write a single >eval that morphs depending on the date; or (c) any variation of the above? Is >that time well-spent or not? > >Rather than trying to circumvent stupid rules, the stupid rules should be >fixed... Personally, I find the total behaviours so appalling that the match itself ought not to go ahead. If these persons involved in the organisation are examples of the reality of computer chess, they don't deserve to get an exhibition match.
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.