Author: Mark Young
Date: 23:02:35 05/29/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 29, 1998 at 23:15:01, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On May 29, 1998 at 22:20:42, Mark Young wrote: > >>Come on Thorsten. Lets get real here. Chess System Tal is a good >>program. But its light years away for the strenght of Nimzo98, Junior >>4.6, or Fritz 5. > >Do you have CSTal ? Yes, but letting my brothers son use it. He needed a program he could beat. not joking. Do you have Nimzo98 ? Yes I have it. Do you have Fritz5 ? Yes I Have This to. >Do you have 2 pc's of same speed ? Yes I do. >I would like to know how YOU get YOUR reality ? By playing the programs against each other. And like so many others testers. I have found that CSTal got its ass kicked. But unlike you. I don't favor one program over another. I call it like I see it. >I get mine by connecting my 2 pc's and let them play overnight same here. >or play manually fritz5-cstal. again same here. But now I don't waste my time playing such weak programs vs the top programs. Sorry but true. If CSTal gets stronger I will test it again. >If I would have the opinion that fritz5 and nimzo98 would be light years >away (one light year is 9.4605 x 10E12 km's) from cstal, I would not >try to suggest something different here. This is total b.s. You are so bias that you will say anything true or not. You have shown me this many times. >>You only call other people bean counters, because that is the only way >>you have to defend Chess system Tal's poor showing. Chess System Tal is >>getting killed by the dumb fast searches. > >I don't see why or how you can construct this reality. Its called, letting the programs play the games. Being far to both programs. Letting the programs play on their strongest setting. Then without bias letting the programs play. Not caring which one wins or loses. Then letting other people Know your results. >>If you want to judge programs on how pretty you think they play. Fine. >>They rest of us will bean count. You know why, because that how you tell >>if someone or some thing is better at chess. Thats the way it has always >>been done. After Alekhine beat Capablanca. I wounder if Capablanca took >>comfort in the fact that some people thought he played Pretty, and more >>positional looking moves. The point is you can try to make a program >>play very positional looking moves. But if its not sound tacticlly, its >>not worth much. Remember even the positionally minded Humans say that >>chess is 90% tactics. I tend to think the real nature of chess is 100% >>tactics. > >There is no 100 %. This is against quantum mechanics. Maybe in newton >mechanics. Again you show that you have not a clue, about what you are saying. Chess is finite. There for is just one huge tactical tree. Do you think chess is infinite? >Your reality is not mine. >I don'T know on which "facts" you try to talk here, but i hope you would >have >as much games I have played so far. I have many games that I have played. I have been testing computers since the mid 1980's >I don't agree with your comments concerning capablanca and aljechin. It has been you saying that the fast searchers a positional weak, stupid, dumb. And how good Chess System Tal is at knowledege. >CSTal was not designed to play postional moves. Otherwise we would have >named it different. Tal was not famous for his positional play, he was >famous for his attacks. Straighten your facts ! What does the name of the program have to do with what we are talking about. You are correct about Tal. And I would never confuse cst program with his style of play. If your goal was to be accurate about naming your program, and you still wanted to use Tal's name. You should have called the program No System at Tal.
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.