Author: Chuck
Date: 15:46:49 06/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 27, 1999 at 20:33:24, Jerry Creed wrote: >After re-reading Komputer Korners explanation of violations >of the opposite priority rule leading to eradication of =/ and /= Informant >signs and the non-capturing all of the numerics phenomenon when importing >EPD files, backsolving seemed even less usable than ever, unless I wanted to >not use it and do all evaluations manually. However, this dilemma is >clearly neutralized when re-reading Mike Leahy's Backsolving de-mystified. >So, can backsolving be trusted >if left on to Always Solve, should favor unclear over equality be checked or >unchecked and would you allow backsolving to work on Informant symbols or >just plain numerical, as from Zarkov? > > http://www.icdchess.com/wccr/index.html to find Komputer Korners' report : >Bookup 1.5.2: A Continuing Review by Komputer Korner on Wed May 12 11:53:24 >1999 >http://www.bookup.com/ Home of Bookup > >jcreed@snip.net I think Bookup does what it says but sometimes these results can be surprising. I wouldn't trust the evaulations without looking at the lines which follow. As far how a position should be valued, I think this is in large part a matter of taste, personally, I don't see much difference between "unclear" and "equal". It depends on who's doing the classifying.
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.