Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:15:19 04/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 01, 2004 at 00:11:32, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >On April 30, 2004 at 23:57:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 30, 2004 at 23:54:12, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >> >>>On April 30, 2004 at 23:48:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On April 30, 2004 at 23:32:02, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 30, 2004 at 23:23:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 30, 2004 at 22:44:40, Chessfun wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Diep is now in the #3 programs >>>>>>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?362447 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>And Falcon is a Grandmaster strength program about 2700 ELO. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>And assuming "Shredder 8 is the only engine that consistently scores above 50% >>>>>>>against Falcon in my tests" >>>>>>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?362348 we can therefore assume >>>>>>>it's #2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>That leaves Shredder 8 at #1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Lucky both the #2 and #3 program are neither for sale or available else some may >>>>>>>even report they are #1 ;-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I would suggest to both programmers that they get a good team of beta testers >>>>>>>and start posting game scores and results that would be deemed realistic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Sarah. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>You know, of course, that you have now entered a world known as "The Twilight >>>>>>Zone"? Where fact is fiction, fiction is fact, truth is false, imagination is >>>>>>reality, all the other Rod Serling stuff... >>>>> >>>>>Mmmmm, your rol is very important here too: you must be the screenplay writer of >>>>>the production. How many actors will you include in your screenplay? When will >>>>>you return from your twilight zone? >>>> >>>> >>>>I don't live in the twilight zone. I don't claim to be in the top three unless >>>>we talk open hardware where I have a chance. I don't claim to beat all >>>>commercial programs in private tests. I don't claim to have the best eval, the >>>>best search, etc... >>> >>>Finally, I understand: you will simplify some scripts of the screenplay with >>>quick solutions. I thought that you had more imagination. >> >>That's where we differ. This is _not_ about imagination. It is about >>reality... At least in my case, apparently not in some "others"... >> > >Not really. I prefer not to say on that topic. However, I would not dare to say >any similar declaration as all the thread below without facts. For o against, >all the thread is imprudent. I can only say that in ICT4, the Diep book was >decisive in three games but it failed in two games: Hydra and Nexus games. Of >course, those holes were already solved. That is but one reason why making such claims is stupid. One bad book move can make a program look like an idiot. One bug with repetitions can do the same. claims are for lame-brains. They rarely hold true...
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.