Author: Mark Young
Date: 22:04:19 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. It still makes no sense to me why you would do this. Hiarcs then selected Rf1. I again let Hiarcs replay the move >and again it selected Rf1. My Hiarcs 7.32 still likes a4 with a nice + score. > >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 My programs still plays a4....Show us the line you are talking about that dropped hiarcs 7 score to a minus after the move a4. > >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. No you do not...you reject what I said about the position out of hand. You have given nothing back to this discussion. Here is your reply _______________________ "For me to go back to that game and analyze the position would be very time consuming. If you set up the position before a4 and let Hiarcs select a move, see what it plays and notice the score by HIarcs while waiting for a reply. Next, have Hiarcs replay the move and see WHAT move Hiarcs selects. That should solve the issue. If a4 was not a bad move, why would it keep playing Rf1 instead???" ________________________ Well I did what you ask...and Hiarcs still plays a4. I took the time and analyzed the position...something you were not will to do. I even let other programs take the stronger side "in your opinion" to see if they could bust the move a4 of Hiarcs 7.32 which you claim is weak and a loser. I showed the game results and my reasoning about the position. In turn you have given nothing back, and in turn just stick to your claim that a4 is an example of hiarcs 7.32 weak play and and by this shows proof that Hiarcs 7.32 is a weak program. >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? My Hiarcs 7.32 still plays a4. > >Regards, >Mel
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.