Author: Uri Blass
Date: 12:19:48 11/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 2003 at 15:13:58, Bob Durrett wrote: >On November 28, 2003 at 15:02:55, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On November 28, 2003 at 14:47:21, Bob Durrett wrote: >> >>> >>>After all, who is to offer PROOF that it isn't so? For the Junior, Fritz, >>>Shredder, HIARCS & Tiger programmers to offer proof, they would have to reveal >>>their source code, which they surely will not do. >>> >>>Hyatt has often said that his code is not optimized. Maybe the front-runner >>>commercial programs are just improved versions of Crafty! If Crafty can be made >>>100 points better by an attorney, what could talented chess programmers >>>accomplish? >>> >>>: ) >>> >>>Bob D. >> >> >>Maybe you talk nonsense. >>The evaluation of commercial programs is different than Crafty and there is >>knowledge of Crafty that at least part of the commercial programs have not. >> >>Uri > >Obviously, my bulletin was pure intended humor. : ) > >If you don't believe it, just look at the smileys! : ) > >But, to be serious [for just a minute], I must say I'm confused by your >"evaluation of commercial programs" and unclear as to why you believe that at >least part of the commercial programs do not have "knowledge of Crafty." > >[I don't mean to ridicule your English. I just don't understand. Perhaps you >could elaborate?] > >Other than the fact that the programs play better than Crafty, what evidence is >there? A greatly improved Crafty would certainly play better than the version >of the Crafty I have, version 19.03. > >Bob D. I mean to say that there are positions when they play worse than Crafty and I remember examples when Crafty had more knowledge than commercial programs about pawn majorities in the endgame. Uri Uri
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.