Author: Dan Honeycutt
Date: 01:21:14 04/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 2005 at 01:35:48, Graham Banks wrote: >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. Hi Graham Who was it? Or better, to spare them the embarrassment, who was the opponent? Coming back from a -4.8 against a top engine should warrant membership in the order. Best Dan H.
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.