Author: Rich Van Gaasbeck
Date: 16:04:54 07/10/01
Go up one level in this thread
I guess I wasn't clear. Perhaps brilliant wasn't the right word. Imagine that one engine was implemented on top of a magical engine that always gave a list of moves ordered from best to worse. This first engine (the consistent one) always plays the second best move. The second engine (the brillant one) plays the best move (obtained from our magic engine underneath) 95% of the time and the 5th best move the rest of the time. If both engines played a lot of games against a lot of computers and humans, which would have the higher rating. On July 10, 2001 at 17:52:04, Fernando Villegas wrote: >I do not understand that kind of dilema or clasification. Consistency and >brilliance cannot be compared in a basis of "this Or this". It cannot be, for >instance, that a guy that makes a brilliant move has not been a consistent >player in doing good moves before the brilliant one. You cannot play a brilliant >move in a messy position derived of consistently bad moves. To make consistently >good moves is a precondition to do, from time to time, a really brilliant one. >But there is more: it cannot be, also, that a player -human or not- makes "only" >good moves, but never a brilliant one. It cannot, because sometimes the good >move to do is what you would call "brilliant". If he does not play it, then he >is not "consistently" playing good moves. > >Fernando
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.