Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 01:31:08 11/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 29, 2001 at 00:19:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 28, 2001 at 18:48:39, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On November 28, 2001 at 13:47:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On November 28, 2001 at 03:38:59, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>> >>>>On November 27, 2001 at 12:25:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>Deep mistakes are _common_ from a computer's perspective. You might think >>>>>they are "tactically supreme" but there are _lots_ of endgame positions where >>>>>they are clueless. And any time you reach such a position, where either it is >>>>>(commonly) a long-range kingside attack (or less commonly) a deep endgame >>>>>tactic, you get random reports. >>>>> >>>>>I simply personlly don't like anything "random" when somebody/something is >>>>>supposed to be telling me where I went wrong. >>>> >>>>Well, without any more information than your gut feelings, I will continue to >>>>believe that the depth of mistakes is evenly distributed. >>>> >>>>-Tom >>> >>> >>>I believe that is what _I_ said. Some are one move beyond the search >>>horizon, some are 20+ moves beyond. Isn't that "distributed". And the >> >>Distribution between ~13 and infinity is not "even." Duh. >> >>-Tom > > >Duh always strengthens your argument? think about this. Evenly distributed >between 1 and 20 means what? an average of 2? Or an average of _ten_. > >duh... indeed... > >But the duh is on the "other foot"... > >And that is being gracious, because as I said, the purpose of back-to-front >is not to find problems one or two moves sooner, but much more than that. >So maybe 5 to 20 is a better sample, with 20 being a rather low upper bound. I just love a good pissing contest. Whenver I see Bob/Tom/Bob/Tom I know that a trivial detail is being ground into powder. bruce
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.