Author: Mark Young
Date: 22:18:41 07/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 1999 at 00:52:47, Dave Gomboc wrote: >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. I am will to look. I did ask for the whole games that the positions came from. But Mel would not give them to me. > >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.