Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 17:22:19 06/16/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 16, 1998 at 19:16:46, Ed Schröder wrote: >>Posted by Enrique Irazoqui on June 16, 1998 at 18:02:56: > >>Not true. The first version of Fritz’s autoplayer didn’t allow some of the >>opponents to save their games. > >>As a consequence, Rebel, and only Rebel, could not learn. > >How do you know? > >Did you ask other chess programmers too then? What for? No other program that played against Fritz 5 in the SSDF matches went twice for the same losing line, except Comet32 in 2 games. All the other double games in there are the Fritz5-Rebel9 ones. Knowing what kind of aggressive learner Fritz 5 has and knowing that Rebel 9 did not behave like this in other matches, this losing double games indicate that Rebel's learner was the only one hampered by Fritz's autoplayer. But this was not the original point. The issue concerned the killer lines that Fritz 5 played againt Rebel 9. None at all, if you look at the evaluation when Fritz 5 leaves book. All posted, by the way. >>Now, go figure if this is the fault of that autoplayer or if it >>is rather a design flaw of Rebel’s learner. > >Come on! > >Who is not sticking to the general accepted auto232 rules here? > >And I should be responsible for that? > >This is the world up-side-down, no? No. No one says games must be played all black first and then all white. F5 autoplays alternating colors in every game, as in human matches. Rebel's has been so far the only learner suffering because of this or because it couldn't save its games. Is this F5's fault because it uses standard human procedures but non-standard auto232? Or is it Rebel's fault? As I said, go figure... Enrique >- Ed -
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.