Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 07:28:19 03/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2002 at 08:58:40, David Dory wrote: >On March 06, 2002 at 05:29:30, Bernhard Bauer wrote: > >>On March 06, 2002 at 05:17:55, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On March 06, 2002 at 05:14:57, Bernhard Bauer wrote: >>> >>>>Do you really think the Washington Post gave the position in EPD? >>> >>>I don't know what the Washington Post gave, but the position >>>as posted here was not correct. >>> >>>If they only have the diagram, it was ambiguous. >>> >>>-- >>>GCP >> >>You don't know what the Washington Post gave? :-))) >>The poster who started this thread did't convert the position to correct epd as >>he was not aware of castling. >>If they only give the diagram you have to assume every posibility. So a diagram >>is *not* ambiguous. >>In any case, table bases will not help, whether the epd string is right or >>wrong. >>Admit it, even it may be dificult, you were plain wrong. >>Kind regards >>Bernhard > >I understand what you mean about the diagram, and taking no assumptions, even >though the posted FEN did state EXPLICITLY that no castling rights existed. >We should all have taken a step back and looked at that possibility as you >suggest. > >I don't have a single clue what you mean when you say "table bases will not >help, whether the epd string is right or wrong".* > >Not only will the table bases HELP, but they will help the program play the >position AS GOOD AS GOD, (rumor has it that's pretty good, even for playing >chess with atheists or agnostics)! :-) > >When it comes to "difficult admitting", I'd hold up a mirror and not look to >Terry, et. al.. > >Dave > > >What Terry Dave? Please speak your mind. > > > >*(actually, it's an FEN string, but no matter).
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.