Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 07:40:36 11/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 2000 at 10:27:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>CSTal2.03: d8 88" +1.16 Qg5 b6 Bxb6 Rf8 Bc5 Rf6 Bg6 Qxa3 >>Shredder4: d11/23 1'23" +1.07 Qe7 e5 Rh4 d4 fxe5 Qc3 ... >>Gandalf4: d9 ~ 1' +0.86 Bg6 e5 Rg3 Qd2 Rxe5 Qc1+ Kg2 >>Hiarcs7.32: d9/27 1'11" +1.84 Qe7 e5 Rg3 exf4 Rg2 >>Fritz6: d11/34 1'44" +0.72 Qe7 e5 Rh4 d4 Qxe5 Bc6... >>Junior6: d16 1'39" +1.06 Qe7 >>CMaster6000:d3/8 1'46" +0.71 Qg5 Qd2 Qe5 Rc6 Bg6 >Note that except for CSTal, my eval pretty well agrees with the rest. At >the 1+ minute mark, my score is about -1.0, which is right in line with the >rest. I notice _nobody_ said +3.5. So I suppose I miss your point here. ?!?!? Can't you read ???? open you eyes before typing, please. CSTal says +1.16 in search 8 !! and hiarcs even said +1.84 ! and if you give these slow programs (hiarcs 40.000 NPS, cstal 13.000 NPS) more time you get CSTal2.03: d10 1273" +3.33 Qe7 Kh7 Bf7 Qf6 Qxf6 gxf6 Hiarcs7.32: d10/30 34'19" +2.41 Qe7 Kh7 thats exactly what gambit-tiger says much faster... gambit-tiger evaluates the same as cstal and hiarcs, just much faster than those slower programs. do you see it now ? thank you. >So we are back to your old argument about CSTal? IE that it can reach >won positions but it can't win them? This chain of reasoning doesn't leave >me warm and fuzzy at all. ????? i am NOT back to my old point. when cstal is not winning the won positions because it gets outsearched, like hiarcs is outsearched in the moment by most programs, it can easily change tomorrow by giving them faster hardware or new search algorithms. gambit-tiger HAS a fast search. and you see that it has an effect, quite positive... >I certainly don't mind discussing this, but handwaving, shouting, going off- >topic don't convince me of anything. IE discussion about reality, old paradigm, >new paradigm, Newton, and so forth does nothing to make any point you want to >make. i gave you a game and score and position. you call this handwaving ? shouting ? off-topic ??? oh bob - this is computerchess. it's about chess done by computers. the game i do discuss (or try to - it seems impossible to do with you because you behave little blind) with you is on topic because it demonstrates something. and the fact HOW you discuss it shows WHY you are uncapable to make any progress concerning this issue. >It doesn't do this. It follows the path its search, its q-search, and its >evaluation says is optimal according to the terms in the evaluation. It >doesn't know squat about "into the fog". That is nonsense. It is _still_ >a normal "bean-counter" type program. The shape/size of the beans is different, >but that is _all_ that is different. You can try to cast it in the image of >CSTal if you want. But it isn't. aha. ok. if you say it. it must be true :-) >Then shouldn't I have gotten smothered in the attack? right. >You give lots of credit to "luck". But as I said before, If you drive into >heavy fog, you are as likely to have a major wreck as you are likely to make >it through the short-cut before your opponent, who takes it more cautiously. >Anybody is blind in the fog. You miss that point every time. Unless you wear >infra-red goggles. Then there is no fog at all. not anyone. some programs are specialized because they have knowledge crafty hasn't.
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.