Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 01:34:10 07/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 11, 2001 at 19:11:58, Mike S. wrote: >On July 11, 2001 at 18:57:27, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On July 11, 2001 at 13:12:58, Mike S. wrote: >> >>So little goliath doesn't find the right solution. it plays it >>because of some patzer scores in its PSQ tables. > >This conclusion comes way too early... You would have to actually *play* against >it, to see what happens. The *1st* move of a pv is what really matters (the rest >may come at the board, or may not), and this is the right one here. > >After all, it's a sac. You havo to see at least something, to start with giving >away material. > >This type of testing is ok IMO, because the program which finds the correct 1st >moves fastest, will be stronger than the program which takes much longer to >switch to the best move, and produces a perfect pv up to ply 17 after 10 >Minutes. > >That's why I do not pay too much attention to the pv in this type of test (if >it's a good testing move only of course, not if it's a "normal" move...). This is utterly nonsense and you know it. >How is Diep doing here? > >Regards, >M.Scheidl
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.