Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Testgames with Gandalf 4.32f

Author: Mogens Larsen

Date: 06:25:36 09/11/00

Go up one level in this thread


On September 11, 2000 at 09:04:01, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>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.

I'm not talking about you as the author behind Crafty. Your interest is obvious.
But persons who can't wait to invent excuses or refer to ancient versions that
once upon a time performed quite well according to their own tests, or claiming
that the native version used is significantly weaker without a shred of proof.

>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.

That is a reasonable explanation, but not the one chosen by the majority as far
as I can recall.

>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...

As almost everything else...

Mogens.



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.