Author: Mark Young
Date: 22:36:56 07/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 1999 at 01:20:55, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: > >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 ____________ > >Hello Dave, > >I did not respond to a4 because I saw the score drop from a plus to a minus and >decided to let Hiarcs replay the move - I was curious because a4 appeared to be >a bad move as the score indicated. When replaying the move, Hiarcs selected Rf1 >with a plus score. I then let it replay the move once again and again it >selected Rf1 again with a plus score. I decided to let the game continue with >Rf1. Apparently the learning function prohibited it from playing a4 again >because it was a bad move. Otherwise, what could possibly be the explanation? I can tell you this it had nothing to do with hiarcs 7.32 learning fuction. You played the game at 40/2. I let it think for over 20 mins on this position and it never showed at - score with the move a4. And if it did, it does not matter, you claim the move a4 was a blunder. Why because Hiarcs 7.32 plays the move a4 but on your system it shows a - score. Since when does a - score mean a move is a blunder, just because a program thinks it is. I Looked at the position as a human chess player, and analyzed it myself. I could not find a way to refute the move, nor could the other chess programs that played against Hiarcs 7.32 from this position. > >Regards, >Mel > >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.