Author: José Carlos
Date: 01:04:57 06/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 2004 at 03:44:59, Sune Fischer wrote: >On June 01, 2004 at 03:27:37, José Carlos wrote: > >>> >>>It's a very powerful feature, too powerful IMO if not all engines have it. >>>I'm quite sure even Ruffian would lose 10-90 if Crafty had aggressive learning >>>and Ruffian just used a small book without learning. >>>You can be of the opinion that's a fair result, I think it is pure nonsense. >>>Granted, it demonstrates that Crafty has learning that works, but what other >>>conclusions can you hope to draw from it? >> >> >> I disagree but I think we can agree that it's a matter of taste. IMO, Ruffian >>has a very good selective search. Using your reasoning, we could say "if Ruffian >>beats Crafty we can draw the conclusion that Ruffian has a much better selective >>search, but the result is not fair, it should use only null move. Otherwise, the >>comparison is nonsense". :) > >Yesterday I played a few games on fics against a Crafty clone, I think it was >already game 5 where Crafty managed to repeat a won game. >I was very close to resigning already at move 10, the position was not lost at >that point but I knew the game would be of course. > >More importantly, where is the _fun_ in that, why even play the game? >Who in the world gets a kick out of seeing the same games over and over? > >-S. In my opinion, the fun is exactly in figuring out an algorithm to avoid that Crafty clone beating you twice with the same line. Don't you think it is fun to be smarter than a smart opponent? José C.
This page took 0.02 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.