Author: James Robertson
Date: 15:27:49 05/15/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 15, 1999 at 13:44:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 15, 1999 at 11:55:05, Francis Monkman wrote: > >> >>I've had another look at my analysis of this one, and I'm no longer at all sure >>it's sound. My apologies to anyone who spent time on it -- I should have >>examined it closely, rather than just take my 94 'optimistic assessment' for >>granted. No doubt I shall be duly castigated by the 'authorities summoned'... >> >>Congrats to LGG for a brave attempt, though -- who knows but that it might have >>'won on the night', as it did for me? (And a good example of the kind of thing >>mooted under the last posted heading, perhaps.) And apologies to Bob too, great >>program of course -- but it still doesn't find that other one I posted, now >>'certified legal'! >> >>Francis > > >No apology necessary on my behalf... these discussions are always interesting >and when they don't turn 'ugly' they are usually fun. Since the 'person' that >makes them 'turn ugly' doesn't post much here, things are generally sane... Aack... don't keep reopening the wound. If no one keeps bring this up, we can leave it behind us. James > >But back to the 'issue'... a program that finds the 'right move' but for the >'wrong reason' is likely just as bad as one that doesn't find the 'right move' >at all... Because often the right move for the wrong reason implies that in >other positions it will choose the wrong move for that same wrong reason, and >toss the game in the trash can...
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.