Author: Graham Banks
Date: 22:35:48 04/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 2005 at 21:04:16, Mike Byrne wrote: >On April 22, 2005 at 20:49:40, Dan Honeycutt wrote: > >>In the spat further down the page between Chandler and Terry, Chandler makes the >>statement: >> >>"The PV evals are static positional values, and meaningless unless a Mate is >>found." >> >>In support of Chandler, I have seen engines evaluate themselves as +3 and wind >>up drawing or even losing the game. Giving equal time to Terry, it seldom >>happens and, off the top of my head, I can't recall seeing a top engine score >>itself +4 or better and fail to win the game. >> >>Perhaps other members can supply some instances. Membership in the Order of the >>Phoenix goes to the most impressive comebacks. >> >>Best >>Dan H. > >I have seen +6 or 7 and and the engine then lose. Very , rare and I don't have >examples to show. I think it may harder with today's engines and fast >processors -- my recollections are going back to the 90's and perhaps beyond. I've seen an engine scoring +4.8 failing to win the game and it was one of the currently available top engines. Graham.
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.