Author: Lanny DiBartolomeo
Date: 12:09:36 12/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 14, 1998 at 14:12:52, Laurence Chen wrote: >To all chess collectors, >Are you people chess players or just players who like to collect the best engine >available for the cheapest price? In my previous posting, I wrote about my >findings in the CM engine, and it seems that I drew a lot of hot-headed people >who felt that their prize collection was under attack. I presented games and >positions to support my findings, and asked anyone to prove me wrong. So far no >one from the CM club stepped up to the challenge. If you guys want to believe >that CM is infallible and that is like the pope, then let me present this >problem, in a two car race between a Jeep and a Ferrari which car would win the >race? Think about it this problem. I bet you that all Ferrari lovers will say >that their car is the fastest, and it should win the race no problem at all. >Really I say !!! Guess what, sorry to disappoint you Ferrari lovers, you are >wrong, the Jeep will beat your car, although your car is the fastest. How is >that possible you may ask? Did the Jeep had a stronger tuned engine which is >faster than the Ferrari? NO !!! The Jeep did not have any hidden super engine, >so the Jeep did not cheat. So how is the Jeep able to beat the Ferrari then if >the Ferrari is the fastest car. Think about it, it is what I being saying my >past posting. I was hoping for an intellectual discussion of chess in this BBS, >to my disappointment, I only got a bunch of hot aired opinions. So, my fellow >chessplayers, and to those who addicts to collect chess engines, I won't make >any more posting since my posting have been viewed with such anti-thesis. Well >going back to the two car race, the Jeep and the Ferrari, let me tell you that >the Jeep won the race fair and square, no cheating involved at all. The answer >to the question I proposed is a very simple one, very elementary, IT CANNOT BE >ANSWERED, NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION !!! This may be shocking to some of you, yes, I >wanted to make you think about, I purposely omitted to give enough information >about the problem, and if we think about, the Ferrari is indeed faster than the >Jeep, no question, and if the race was run in a smooth terrain, like a freeway, >then the Ferrari would lick the Jeep no sweat. However, I did not say what type >of terrain the race was going to be run. If the terrain is not smooth like a >road, but a rugged road, full of potholes, rocks, mud holes, fallen trees, and >other obstacles, the Jeep will definitively beat the Ferrari no sweat. So how >this apply to chess engines, like I said in my previous post, you must know the >engine strengths and weaknesses, and to use only one engine in all type of chess >positions is a wrong approach, because not all engines are equal, some will play >best in simple positions, others in complex and dynamic positions, then applying >the proper engine to the proper chess position is important. Therefore, CM is >not an universal engine, like some of you proclaimed that CM would evaluate all >chess positions correctly. The truth is it cannot, I've seen positions which CM >gave the wrong evaluation. And the reply I get is that, yeah but, other engines >also evaluate some chess positions which CM got right. My point exactly, no >engine is capable of doing everything right. Have you ever studied the games >which your engine won the games and asked the question why, or better, what type >of position they reached in order to win? With this last thought I leave you >people to your nice BBS and hopefully calm and tranquility will return to your >passive posting of collecting games and chess engines. I would like to say also that if you are just trying to be helpful and i have read into it the wrong way my appologies to you.
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.