Author: Phil Dixon
Date: 16:27:54 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 These are the kind of discussions I like to read. (I can't participate because I no absolutely nothing about writing a program.) But I still learn something, and I am pleased to have Dr. Hyatt posting again. Phil > > >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... > >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.