Author: Tony Werten
Date: 01:19:44 07/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 10, 2001 at 19:04:54, Rich Van Gaasbeck wrote: >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. It get's killed. Try an exchange. Recapturing is the best, the rest looses a piece. Tony >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.