Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 10:12:54 10/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 30, 2002 at 21:21:41, stuart taylor wrote: [snip] >It is good to have the feeling that you are getting the most educated advice >when trying to analyze a game, and if you are very hopeful that a sacrifice you >think is ingenious, should work, you would want the program most likely to see >the truth about it, as possible. >And when playing, you would rather be beaten by wisdom than by your human >frailties being exposed (which any good program can do). I mean, the greater the >program (nowdays) the more likelihood of its wisdom. And in that way, you are >slightly more likely to learn things from your lost games. >That's why I keep wanting the "best" in playing strength. Not because the others >are too easy. In my experience, every strong chess engine has good ideas sometimes and bad ideas sometimes. I like to run several of them to analyze the same problem. Usually, you can tell which one has the best plan.
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.