Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 05:45:09 05/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 01, 2004 at 07:37:36, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >On May 01, 2004 at 07:32:13, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>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? > >MMmmmmm...... Well, lets create another long thread about the absurd topic.... >How do you want the thread: absurd, silly or not serious? I have some freetime >to waste here. What means MMmmmmm? Does that prove deep thinking mode? - I doubt that.
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.