Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 23:35:39 11/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 2000 at 00:12:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 27, 2000 at 22:10:07, Mogens Larsen wrote: > >>On November 27, 2000 at 21:52:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>What I was referring to was playing the right move with a score that is < 0, >>>when the move is a _winning_ move. If the program _knows_ it is winning, it >>>will have a positive score... If it doesn't know this, it is playing it for >>>the wrong reason. >> >>That's just a question of depth since the score is obviously improving. When a >>program is improving its score by chosing the right moves (to a certain extent >>as inaccuracy tends to creep in the further you go in the PV), then I consider >>it to be the right reason. >> >>If Nxh6 had been the only correct move in the PV, but the score > 0, then it's a >>right move for the wrong reason to me. The score will improve if the PV keeps on >>approaching the correct variation. You're doing a TC imitation by staring at the >>score IMHO. >> >>What score would imply "right reason" at depth 11? >> >>Mogens. > > >I disagree. There have been multiple cases of programs being specifically >tuned to play certain moves in test positions. The PV was "close" but missed >the important move that made the score _really_ improve. > >Whether that happened in this case or not, I have no idea. But when someone >says "white to play and _win_" and the program plays the right move but with >a score that says "if I could find a repetition I would take it in a heartbeat" >then I remain skeptical of its ability to really understand what is going on. >And suspect it is very likely that it may well go wrong... Why do we have some weird controversy any time this stuff gets discussed? 1) There has never been any evidence presented that anyone has tuned for any of these Nolot positions ever. Other test suites perhaps, but Nolot, no. 2) Many of these positions have been found by computers for a long time, including this one. This is one of the easier ones to "see". 3) I have never seen any "winning" PV in this position produced by a program. Everyone finds this eventually, with a minus score. Hsu says they found a win with DT, but doesn't provide the score. 4) I don't think that anyone made any claims that any program was Joe Super-Stud because it found a "draw" or "surviving" PV in this position. Within the past month or so, you have insinuated dishonesty or evil intent a number of times, or at least you've brought up the issue and directed several threads away from their initial topic and on to issues of the integrity of the individual in question. You've done this with little or no evidence beyond the considerable weight that your name carries. And when it has been pointed out to you that you've done this, it has been extremely difficult to get you to retreat, even the slightest bit, from these damaging insinuations. And as far as I can tell you've been wrong in every case. There is no logical reason for you to bring up this topic with regard to this program and this test position. All you are doing is haphazardly smearing the Gandalf author, and I have no idea why you could mean to do this. bruce
This page took 0.01 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.