Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 21:32:32 04/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 01, 2004 at 00:15:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... Well, as far as I can remember, I have not claimed anything. I only say that the topic is not productive. I have just pointed out where the Diep book failed in ICT4.
This page took 0.01 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.