Author: Djordje Vidanovic
Date: 14:09:08 08/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 23, 2005 at 06:18:31, A. Cozzie wrote: >Zappa is not really that great at blitz. In fact before the WCCC I did a test >at 5+0 vs Fruit and Fruit won 75% - and I was using 2 processors for Zappa. > >However at 15+5 that score was reversed (of course I was still cheating there :) > >The reason is that Zappa concentrates on getting a deep search by an efficient >branching factor, not pruning/big nps, so it needs some time before it begins to >outsearch opponents. It is a serious chess engine, not a blitzer. > >anthony Congratulations on winning the World Championship so convincingly :-). However, winning the Championship in such a spectacular manner does not also mean that your logic is always flawless. As an example I'll quote one of your statements above. You say that "[Zappa] is a serious chess engine, not a blitzer". Are you, by any chance, implying that superb blitzers are not serious chess engines, or that serious chess engines are, as a rule, not superb blitzers? Because if you are, you are very wrong. All serious chess engines are excellent blitzers. If you think otherwise, please tell us which serious chess engine is not a very good blitzer. Djordje
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.