Author: blass uri
Date: 03:35:24 09/01/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 01, 1999 at 05:53:59, Ralf Elvsén wrote: >On August 31, 1999 at 22:39:09, eric guttenberg wrote: > >>If there is any reliable data showing that CST can even hold its own with >>H7.32 in a significant number of games, I will be surprised to see it. >> >> >>eric > >Could you (or Mark or anyone else...) who have seen CSTal >play alot, tell me why you think it is weaker than e.g. Hiarcs? >(I don't own a copy). I also don't own a copy I do not know if tal is weaker than hiarcs but I do not believe that it is more than 200 elo better than it(Thorsten did not post enough games to prove it but this is the conjecture that thorsten's results suggest) My impression based on games and evaluations that I saw is that tal's evaluation is not objective and prefers the attacker in unclear positions. It does not imply that tal can be improved by using more objective evaluation because the best evaluation to win games is not the same as the best evaluation to predict the result. >I always thought that it would be interesting to see >a CSPetrosian, since that style might be better suited >to the programming technique used in CSTal (not that >I know anything about it, except for the low NPS). 1)The assumption that fast searchers are better at tactics is sometimes wrong 2)I think that you always have to avoid tactical errors and I am not sure if playing in positional style when the games are long can help you. If you play in tal's style you may discover that the game was so short that you had no time to do tactical errors. Uri
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.