Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:30:00 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. I don't believe I said you had claimed anything. I was originally talking with Omid. This is the _second_ such nonsensical claim about beating commercials. This is the _third_ such nonsensical statement when considering the statement about why I didn't attend the last WCCC...
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.