Author: blass uri
Date: 23:16:40 07/31/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 01, 2000 at 01:52:39, Derrick Wilson wrote: > > That is just my subjective opinion, like another poster I played rebel10b at >40/2 it seems to be alot stronger than century. I think sometimes people forget >that it was Rebel 10 that almost beat annand (missing the winning move Qe6), and >not rebel century. Rebel Century was born out of pressure on Schroeder, to >satisfy the demands of computer vs computer lovers. The real work of rebel >(positional) was in Rebel 10b!! The point here is computer-computer games. If rebel10b is better in comp-comp games then the excuse that Century was born out of pressure to satisfy the demands of computer-computer lovers is not convincing. I think that the opposite is correct and Rebel Century was born in order to win humans. I did not check the game with Rebel century but I suspect that positional blunders of Rebel century that Rebel10b does not play may be because of bugs or because of some wrong new knowledge. I believe that testing against computers and analyzing the games is important and I suspect that century was not tested enough in games against computers. I believe that testing against computers is important even if the main target is to win humans because you can get a lot of data not only about tactics but also about positional mistakes. 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.