Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 04:32:13 05/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 01, 2004 at 00:32:32, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >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. If you haven't claimed anything then why did you tell Bob that he might be the script writer of the whole screenplay [for what - the Twilight Zone??]?? Wasn't that a claim or better an attack just because Bob had expressed the obvious, namely that the alleged data about DIEP and FALCON were belonging in the Twilight Zone? - Tell me for what reason you wrote that at all? Only to publish that you fixed some holes in the DIEP book? What had all that to do with the basic absurdity of such claims for example that FALCON now plays like a GM with 2700? You know that that is wrong, don't you?
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.