Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 02:44:37 12/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
>Posted by Robert Hyatt on December 12, 1999 at 10:19:26: >>>But it clearly isn't doing _nearly_ as well vs humans (even with anti-human on) >>>as it is doing against other programs... >> >>Do you have some game examples that supports your strong judgement? >> >>Ed >Somebody else already posted a really bad result vs a humaon on FICS (winning >1/3, losing 2/3, against a player that isn't a "master" of anything but anti- >computer chess. I have watched "other" players (not often as I don't watch >very often, except when crafty/scrappy is idle) also cause problems... This >is the most striking example of comp-vs-comp strength being _far_ different >than comp-vs-human strength that I recall in recent years... This specific case wasn't an issue of playing strength but time-control which in the meantime is corrected. I am still waiting for the game examples that supports your judgement. >But as I mentioned before, remember that "I am 10 years behind the commercial >programs". I don't see any reason to point out the weaknesses of someone that >is 10 years ahead of me, wouldn't you agree? But, in fact, the problems are >very obvious, so my analysis isn't needed anyway... It took me some time to figure what you are talking about. A few short remarks: a) it wasn't said that way, b) action forces reaction, c) let's live in peace. >Fixing the problems is going to adversely affect its currently great >anti-computer style of play, however... Oh come on. Ed
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.