Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 17:48:07 10/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 13, 2003 at 14:30:24, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: >On October 13, 2003 at 13:09:03, Charles Roberson wrote: > >> >> You make the statement that Diep is a positional engine and you chose it based >>on that. So, why did you run G/5 matches? At G/5 tactics and search depth >>is crucial. > > >With a sole purpose in my mind: to get an idea in which positions Diep does not >feel quite at home. Which I did. And the short time controls (sad, but true) >were the only way to play a lot of games and check Diep out as much as I could. >Besides, it is always fun to watch two different programs play each other for >the first time on your computer. You just might agree with me on that. > >As for the ubiquitous umbrella excuse offered by losers at blitz time controls >over and over again, please read Christophe's post below. Yes, I read the Theron´s message but I dont agree. I have got very different result when the time controls are very different. For instance, I get better result when Amy plays in long time controls. Amy plays badly in short time controls against the same engine. The turnabout of time controls can give different results and I dont see how you can detect in short time control games when the engine positional weaknneses are. My question again, why did you choose Diep (and not other engine) in short time controls and how did you get it in the event you use the Diep Version 2.XX of 2001?
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.