Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 13:02:28 11/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 11, 2000 at 10:50:44, pavel wrote: > >> >>And pavel makes a mistake to try to get you to specify some match condition that >>will solve everything once and for all. It's silly to make you jump through >>hoops rather than just talking about what these game-analogies are supposed to >>prove. >> >>Do you want to prove that Bob is stupid? That is kind of nasty and I don't >>believe that that is what you are after, but if it is, that's probably won't be >>very productive. >> >>Do you want to prove that Tiger is better than Crafty? One game won't prove >>that so why even bother trying with one game? > >I wasnt looking for a solution, that will solve everything once and for all. > >I wasnt just getting the "point" of only testing with crafty, to prove the fact >that GT is the result of a new "paradigm" (whatever!!) > >assuming, that thorsten is right and GT is a new paradigm, >also, assuming that crafty is part of the "old paradigm", > >according to thorsten: crafty along with most top chess programs are part of old >paradigm, exceptions are probably cstal, hiarcs, gandalf and few others. This is just a list of programs that Thorsten likes and doesn't like. Perhaps there is reason to like them or not like them. I think he probably likes aggressive style and speculation. I know that CST speculates. Tiger apparently speculates sometimes. Do Hiarcs and Gandalf speculate, or is that a reference to them having +0.1 in a position that Fritz has at --0.1 or something? >the group that includes all the programs of old paradigm is preety big, and >crafty is a part of it(all assumption to make it easier), but crafty is >certainly not the best of it !! This is just the latest dumb fad. Chris introduced a new word and people who take computer chess too seriously are playing with it. It's like someone at a laundry soap manufacturer's convention going on in all seriousnes about "brighteners", and all the other laundry soap guys listening with rapt attention. >now ,if you (Bruce) would like to prove a point as something as that, would you >try a program that is in the middle of the group (crafty) or would you rather go >for the best? (junior6a, fritz6a?) > >whats the "point" of proving the fact that a 'commercially extablished(?), >strong program' is better than a 'freeware engine' ? I don't care about proving anything. I care about having fun and learning about computer chess, while deflecting anger addressed at various people. >winning fine games against crafty wont prove that it is part of the new >paradigm. Brighteners. >if you (thorsten) wanna prove it , you BETTER prove it. Dont give stupid >examples. > > >as for playing without opening book, do you (bruce) really believe all programs >plays equally well under such condition. I know programs that will play moves, >without opening books, that even a beginner wont play. I think the game was fun. I think Crafty played *that game* badly. Of course I could go on at length about programs not being tuned to play out of book on move 2, but since I'm not trying to prove anything huge, and I'm resisting the efforts of others to attempt to prove anything huge, I don't care about the effects of the opening book. There is a game. It's an interesting game. Bob could probably find things to think about if he played the game over. I found things to think about and it wasn't even my program playing it. >Do you (bruce) believe that playing without opening book, (so that bad book >moves doesnt come out) is the ideal way to test games? Of course not, I think it's a stupid way to "test games", but those who try to make these games into geo-political strugges are a bit too intense for me, so I'll just look at the game and deflect the political baggage that people might attach to it. bruce >Humans are not 100% correct, and I am well aware of that. >But we can try to be as accurate as possible. >If I make mistakes I have the courage to admit it. > >some don't and they fear that it's emberacing to them, so they just 'drag on' >ie, "paradigm" > >Pavs ;)
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.