Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 16:41:06 09/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
>I said that I guess that it can find the correct move in 90% of the cases. >It does not mean that it is going to play correct moves in the opening in 90% of >the games. > Yes, it can play correctly the main lines of the Dutch, Budapest, Wolga, Queens Gambit, QGA, Ruy Lopez, Italian, French, Sicilian Paulsen and about 450 openings. You don´t know anything about openings theory. What I Conclude about your declarations. Your declarations corresponds to a beginner about 1100 Elo. > >I know something about opening theory. >I am not expert in this field but I have stable rating that is close to 2000 in >the last years. > Considering the fact that you are recomending 1. e4 e5 2. De2 is a fact about your level: A beginner that speak without any sense. Yes, where because you rate is only about 1100 and if you are a correspondence chess player, of course, this is not your real elo. >I can learn the reasons for mistakes. >I found that one of the reason for movei's mistakes is underestimating mobility >so I increased my mobility evaluation and the version that is playing in the 3th >divsion has bigger evaluation of mobility relative to the versions that were >playing in the 3th divsion and the 4th division. > >I can look at a lot of mistakes and try to generalize some things to teach my >program. > >I have also ideas that are not used in movei and I stopped the work on movei >because I prefer to learn C better so I can check for bugs better in the future. > > > >> >>There many good lines that are too complex of solved so the resultan position is >>the essence of the thing. The resultant position should be a position that the >>chess sillicon knows to manage. > >I do not believe that they are too complex to solve. Yes, tell this to Kasparov about what he is thinking. :))) This is your best joke of the day. No, you are messing all the time. Please, Uri, read a beginners book of opening theory and we can debate with some sense. >I believe that there are positions that chess programs do not know to solve >because the programmers did not teach them the right rules of evaluation and >extensions in order to solve them. > Yes? Then, all the programs are wrong! >I believe that seeing a lot of examples can help to define small number of rules >that are going to help to solve many of them. > Maybe, you can believe in genetic algorithms but it is another thing that you can prove any concrete thing. It is useless to justify throug your Engine (off topic of course) because it would be the world champion and I haven´t seen it in any Tournament with good results. What you are testing in your chess program has proved any conclusive thing? I don´t see anything useful that you have showed in this long thread, by the way, very funny. :))) It is a mess thread about how you don´t understand a coin about chess openings thoery. Regards, Arturo.
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.