Author: blass uri
Date: 03:24:44 03/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 14, 2000 at 13:56:49, Dann Corbit wrote: >On March 14, 2000 at 03:49:27, Bernhard Bauer wrote: >[snip] >>No this position is not correct, neither the others. >>Why not double check? -:))) >> >>[d]corbits1/epd5/should2/be6/double2/checked1/8/ w - - acd 64; acn -999999999; >>acs 500000; bm double_check; ce d o u b l e c h e c k >>k i n d r e g a r d s B e r n h a r d; > >None of these are my positions. They were all posed by someone else. Actually, >I am getting pretty annoyed at bogus EPD positions. I think, from now on, I >will only analyze those posted by persons I know are capable of producing a >correct one. I have spent several machine-days of wasted time on this crap when >those same machines could have been analyzing CAP data. > >I'm rather disgusted. I suggest to look at the positions before giving the computer to analyze them for a long time. You can recognize bogus EPD positions if the suggested move is illegal or if it is clearly illogical. You can guess for example that sacrificing a rook for nothing when you do not see material or initiative for it is illogical. 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.