Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:04:01 09/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 11, 2000 at 04:26:43, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On September 10, 2000 at 21:52:20, Peter Skinner wrote: > >>Oh I agree fully. I just expected Gandalf to do a bit better. Close series, and >>still good results... I also agree Crafty is not a weak program, that was not my >>intention to be relayed. I was just surprised by the result. >> >>But in any case, Gandalf does have problems with Crafty, and Fritz 6. It handles >>everything else pretty reasonably. > >There was nothing wrong with what you wrote and I agree with your previous >assessment and also regarding Fritz 6. Your message just happened to be the last >in the thread at the time and the temptation to take a swing at the "Crafty >excuse company" proved too overpowering. I'm not quite sure who you are talking about here, but I really don't see a lot of "excuse company" activity. I _always_ see a lot of "explanation" discussion. Because I am always interested in what is happening. IE in the SOS/Crafty disaster with the SSDF guys, I was interested in what was going wrong. It later turned out to be just bad opening line choices for the most part, as halfway through the 'match' results started evening out after Crafty lost the first N games badly. > >The latest Nalimov build of Crafty 17.13 seems vicious and mean, so I doubt that >only Gandalf will suffer when confronted with its strength. And as James >mentions, a better or more specialized book would do wonders. However, you can >go a long way with learning and a narrow bookwidth. > >Mogens. You can go a long way only if you play a very long match. Because the learning has to find ways to circumvent the many hand-prepared lines that some programs have in their books. This isn't quick, but does make progress. slowly...
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.