Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 21:52:47 07/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 1999 at 00:14:32, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: >The game as I stated in my original post was at 40/2. Hiarcs selected a4 and >after making the move its score dropped to a minus. I therefore allowed Hiarcs >to replay the move. Hiarcs then selected Rf1. I again let Hiarcs replay the move >and again it selected Rf1. > >Now, I believe it is quite evident that Hiarcs learning function did not allow >it to replay a4 and insisted on playing Rf1. If you think a4 was not a bad move, >then how come Hiarcs would not play it again and insisted on Rf1? > >By the way, your headline in the post to me is not appreciated. I expected an >intelligent discussion about this and not some silly rhetoric. You asked for >examples and I gave you some. You insist on dwelling on this trying to dispute >even the program you are raving about. Hiarcs recognized a4 was bad and that's >why it wouldn't play it again - unless you have some better explanation? > >Regards, >Mel Did you play a move in reply after it played a4 before returning to the position before a4? If so, which? It could be that Mark's copy is not analyzing a particular response as deeply as yours did, not having been prompted to do so by a move from the opponent. Dave
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.