Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 04:51:38 10/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 15, 2000 at 07:06:19, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 15, 2000 at 06:28:06, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > >>On October 15, 2000 at 04:59:40, Harald Faber wrote: >> >>>On October 14, 2000 at 14:52:00, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>> >>>>hello jeroen ! congratulations ! >>>>as we can see from the games, this new engine leads >>>>to a new paradigm. christophe continues what chris began >>>>5 years before. >>> >>>Continues??? Did Chris give his code to Christophe? >>>Certainly not so don't talk of continueing, Christophe earns the honour alone. >> >>Christophe was the first to call himself a second Chris, hopefully for his >>approach to some aspects of chess programming. >> >>But I think we are forgetting Marty Hirsch. Mchess is speculative, aggressive >>and a lot of fun, and more balanced and succesful than CST. I would relate >>Gambit more to Mchess than to CST, and not for personal reasons. >> >>Enrique > >I see from the game against nimzo that tiger had very big positional scores of >more than +3 pawns(the difference between tiger's evaluation and the evaluation >of most programs) > >Did you see similiar cases in comp-comp games when Mchess's score was +2.5 and >the opponent score was +1 for itself? Sure. Often. >I am also interested to know what is mchess score after Nxc6. > >1k1r4/p2r4/1pn5/1P2p1q1/P3Qp1p/5P1P/2R3P1/6BK w - - 0 1 > >If Mchess does not see a clear advantage for white than it is clear that tiger >is different from mchess in the evaluation. There is no need to try specific positions to know that Mchess and Gambit have different evals. I know they do. What I meant to say is that Mchess is also speculative. Enrique >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.