Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 16:51:43 05/18/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 18, 1999 at 19:45:52, Mark Young wrote: [snip] >I know this, and is why I do not search this way. My point was he never asked, >and the last time he still rejected hiarcs7, even though Hiarcs7 was the only >program to find the BM, and no I did not give it the BM that time either. I have no idea what you are talking about. Hiarcs is one of my favorite programs and I use it all the time for C.A.P. However, if you specify a bm beforehand, H7 quits looking. This often produces absurd results, as reflected by the chosen pv. >The last time Dann rejected Hiarcs7 results because he did not like the score >produced by Hiarcs7, even though its line of play was correct, and hiarcs7 was >the only program to find the BM. It has nothing to do with what tool is being used. If the ce is bad, then the tool has not found the right move yet, only blundered onto it. This should be immediately obvious because the tool itself does not like the choice given. >If someone can tell me the logic behind rejecting Hiarcs7 results, only because >it can solve some postions in a negitive way, meaning seeing that all other move >lose quickly thus finding the BM in a negitive way. I don't reject Hiarcs. Also, it was not the only tool to find the answers. At any rate, I already knew the answers, I wanted to see if a program could legitimately find them. >To me both ways of finding a correct move have equal weight, seeing the one move >that wins, or seeing that all other moves are clearly worse thus finding the >best move. Finding a best move without knowing why is nothing more than blundering onto it by accident. If the ce is negative, it does not have the correct line of reasoning yet.
This page took 0.01 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.