Author: stuart taylor
Date: 15:56:35 05/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 24, 2001 at 12:00:43, Rajen Gupta wrote: >On May 24, 2001 at 09:49:51, stuart taylor wrote: > >>On May 24, 2001 at 08:24:47, Rajen Gupta wrote: >> >>>On May 24, 2001 at 07:55:37, Mogens Larsen wrote: >>> >>>>On May 24, 2001 at 07:36:12, Rajen Gupta wrote: >>>> >>>>>something to do with the learning function, not just in openings but also i >>>>>suspect during the game itself when it plays an alternate move, which may turn >>>>>out to be better. >>>> >>>>When did Frans Morsch implement position learning? >>>> >>>>Mogens. >>> >>>i dont know but i have noticed it in a few games. dont ask me for examples, i >>>dont have them >>> >>>rajen >> >>So this doesn't show that Fritz is all that great in actual chess playing. >>If It's opponent had randomly different styles in all it's games, then Fritz >>would be seen for what it really is. Weaker! >> >>All this shows you that chess might not be 100% scientific! >> >>S.Taylor > >i dont agree with you on that either-all i'm saying is that from my observations >on ssdf matches, long matches against relatively equal opponents seems to favour >fritz-whether ths is mere chance or whether it involves a more aggressive form >of book learning, i cant say. > >i dont quite know what you mean by scientific-it is as scientific as any other >sport or zero sum game involving 2 players, where the starting position is >identical, and where external influences have no role in the outcome of the >match. > >rajen I mean that chess results might be partly luck, or even a big part. S.Taylor
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.