Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 22:23:02 11/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 25, 2001 at 21:31:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: >No, I didn't say neither approach is capable of finding "mistakes". You are >again simply missing the point. We are talking about mistakes that the program >can _not_ find on its own, starting a search at the point where the original >real mistake was made. As a result, the program will "report" the mistake Since when are we only talking about these mistakes? Which post am I supposed to re-read? I've been reading this one: http://www.icdchess.com/forums/1/message.shtml?198458 and it doesn't qualify the word mistake anywhere. Instead of calling my reading skills into question, how about you be a little more careful when presenting your points, eh? As for your whole consistency argument, you are working from the fundamentally flawed premise that if a shallow search can't identify a mistake, then a somewhat deeper search can't either. Let's say you make a mistake at move 10 that a shallow search can only identify at move 11. If you analyze front-to-back, then yeah, you will consistently identify the wrong move as a mistake. But if you analyze back-to-front, then there's a chance you will identify the actual mistake as a mistake, right? So let's just get this straight, you are saying that being consistent is worth more than increasing accuracy? Some would beg to differ... -Tom
This page took 0.01 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.