Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 14:28:38 06/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 2004 at 16:26:09, Steve Glanzfeld wrote: "I created a version that was tactical brilliant. It solved *everything* in the testsuites. Then i started playing with it and it was hundreds of points weaker in games." Stefan Meyer Kahlen a few months ago. So the answer to your question is: The version that scores hundreds of points more onto testsuites is NOT the version to play with at tournaments, because in testsuites all those patzermoves work as we know and they do not in tournaments. In tournaments giving away a piece for 2 pawns near the opponent king is *not* the way to win a game. >On June 15, 2004 at 16:12:30, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On June 15, 2004 at 16:09:10, Steve Glanzfeld wrote: >> >>>Patzer moves are BAD moves you know :) not those which are chosen for a (bm) >>>test. >> >>Patzer moves are easy looking moves, which in case of the selected positions are >>working. In normal positions they can be indeed be very bad. >> >>If you do not understand this with your limited capabilities, then it will >>indeed be difficult to understand chess. > >No normal program will choose an unusual move (i.e. a queen sac) "out of the >blue" in a normal position. Except, the program is completely broken. > >You guys are argueing as if it would be DOWNRIGHT BAD when a chess program finds >good moves (quickly)... I wonder what a chess program looks like, when it is >based on that philosophy :)) Does it try to avoid the good moves? So, if there's >a lack of success, the chances are good that we have found a major reason here >:) >Steve The philosophy as i wrote down works for Shredder.
This page took 0.01 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.