Author: Mike S.
Date: 14:18:51 06/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 10, 2004 at 16:40:26, Franz Hagra wrote: >If an engine reaches the depth to find that maybe with Rad8 there is another >solution with the same idea as Re3 this engine (which "really understand" the >position) is punished by the test with a higher solving time! When there is **no reason to delay** Re3, it can be considered wrong (not solved) when an engine prefers unnecessary pseudo* in-between moves to the correct solution. Isn't there even a danger that White could defend against the Re3 idea when it isn't played immediatly? *) real in-between moves are improvements where something is gained by delaying the "normal" continuation; that's not the case when the "normal" idea can be played immediatly and the delay gains nothing. Btw. your latest PGN with large analysis is a good example of what I meant, how a well founded critic of a test position should be supported by (which doesn't mean everyone must agree with the analysis conclusion, but it is the good basis for a chess-orientated disucussion about it). - But Rolf is still defending your previous "general" approach which did not include such analysis. It seems to me he didn't keep up with your developement :-)) You know the saying: You can't choose your fans... mfg. M.Scheidl P.S. Die von Rolf verlinkten Postings aus älteren CSS-Thread mit etwas "rauhen" Bemerkungen von mir resultierten aus der Konfronation zu diesem Thema, wo ich mich ein wenig zur Weißglut getrieben fühlte - ich glaube, durchaus zu Recht. Aber zu dem jetzigen sachlich sehr gut ausgestatteten Posting (vorbehaltlich jedweder Zustimmung natürlich) habe ich ja im CSS-Fourm konstruktiv geantwortet, was auch angebracht war, da genau das geschah was ich dauernd gepredigt hatte...
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.