Author: stuart taylor
Date: 05:03:49 01/02/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 01, 2006 at 15:06:31, Dan Ellwein wrote: >On January 01, 2006 at 12:50:38, stuart taylor wrote: > >>What really interests me is to see if Rybka, when completed, will be able to not >>lose a game vs programs of Shredder 7.04 and/or below. >>I like to believe that chess has perfection to it, and sometimes, chess programs >>simply win or lose because of bugs. >>But I prefer to see the actual battle, and the accumulation of small advantages >>etc. without other things deciding the outcome, after all, such as a move which >>throws away the game. >>S.Taylor >> >>Atleast, if it can NEVER lose a game from Hiarcs 6 or below, that will also be a >>big achievement. >> >>Hiarcs 6 was a mighty ruler in its time, and we will be able to see that it is >>now answered up. If not, there's always reason to think that the improvement >>since then, still might have a hole in it somewhere. >> >>That Hiarcs 6 or whatever, should be on equal hardware. >> >>S.Taylor > >Hi Stuart > >my BORIS manual says that given a time control of 2 hours per move, would give a >master a good game... > >all the best, > >Dan Obviously, I don't see any relevance of this to my post. Also seemongly, no one has the patience to understand what I want here. I mean, I don't like it when one program e.g. version 7 gets good results over program x, and upgraded version 8 gets worse results over that same program x. It's not consequtive. Even if you say it's better overall, but just wit a different ballance, still, SOMETHING got UNballanced and went backwards. I like it that when you get an upgrade, you should no longer be yearning after its predeccessor, because of it having some playing quality which is missing from the upgraded version. S.Taylor
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.