Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 21:09:36 06/05/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 05, 2000 at 23:15:19, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >Your point is well taken, but there is nothing wrong with being lucky! You must >not forget that one program can be "lucky" more often than another if it has a >better eval, so perfection, though desirable, is not required. Very hard to do >as I'm sure you can atest. How one program does on one position is pretty >meaningless, while how it does in the long haul is what counts. Not in this case. Anyone can have an eval that says something in excess of +1 if you are up a pawn. I think it's fine to score a position in a big suite if you sniff the right answer for reasons that aren't particularly correct. To do otherwise is very difficult and is perhaps incorrect, because in a large suite, perhaps sniffing has some significance. But I don't think it's good to extol the virtues of a particular program because of a sniff in one situation. Whether a program finds the correct answer in 2 plies or 6 is not a big deal here. Finding a way to win the piece is not at all a big deal here, it is a very easy problem. This does not indicate a deep understanding of all of the facets of this position, or of positions like these. bruce
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.