Author: Will Singleton
Date: 18:06:27 10/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 2000 at 17:09:19, Fernando Villegas wrote: >What I register in the first place, dear Czub, is that, no matter what, you get >into it and find a reason to treat all of us here as near morons or something of >the sort. Sometimes we are bean counters, some times wee do not se certain >things you of course saw, some times we believe in statistics instead of >intuitive jumps from just one move. >Maybe you are right and this move show Gambit is really different, but maybe >only show that some extreme settings produces some different kind of moves in a >generally speaking "normal" proggram. BTW, I suppose that with belief you mean >"speculative" evaluation. Well, I think that in some sense any chess calculation >is, in a degree, an speculative evaluation. It is so as much you must stop >search lot before the game ends. Any calculation that does not exhaustive is >speculative. So, at the end, the real difference could be just different ways to >be speculative, different kind of guesses. The quiescent search is in its >enterity a kind of disguised guess. It was invented, I believe -sorry, I >speculate- by the Spracklen and implemented the first time for micros in sargon >II. And if it was not invented by them, someone else did in the same time, 25 >years ago in any case. Nothing too new under the sun. >Cheers >Fernando I am somewhat discombobulated to discover that I agree with everything in the above message. I don't know if this result is due to your evolving status as a computer-chess expert, or the Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin. Will
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.