Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 22:51:48 01/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 2001 at 00:44:46, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 13, 2001 at 23:52:10, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On January 13, 2001 at 23:40:49, Mike S. wrote: >> >>>On January 13, 2001 at 23:00:54, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>(...) >>>>I also think that only games at tournament time controls should count in the >>>>discussions. Typically, the trojan horse attacks are made at blitz time >>>>controls. If you give the computers 40/2 time control, they are far less likely >>>>to get sucked into such a thing. >>> >>>I agree, but... an IM would reject the trojan sac under blitz conditions too :o) >>>- Btw., the games mentioned were at 40/120' with one exception, and the last 3 >>>on P600. Quite impressive. >>> >>>Anyway, I think that anti-anti code (like Crafty and probably Chess Tiger have >>>it for this pattern) are useful improvements, towards "real" IM or GM strength. >> >>Since Crafty's code is public knowledge, soon all the other programs will have >>it too. >> >>;-) > >I do not agree. > >Not everyone copies from Crafty. If crafty figures out how to plug a hole, and they have not figured it out yet, how smart are they if they don't at least take a look? Now, I know there are lots of people who don't want to copy another program. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about understanding what crafty is doing, thinking about it, and deciding if the *technique* is a good idea or not. I think that not doing so would be foolish. Well, from the standpoint of closing a gaping hole in your defense it is foolish. But there is a certain sense of diginity in figureing out everything for yourself. On the other, other hand, well... There is no other hand.
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.