Author: Melvin S. Schwartz
Date: 23:14:38 07/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 1999 at 01:36:56, Mark Young wrote: >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. ______________________ This is it for tonight because I have to get to sleep. I stated many times that it was after Hiarcs selected a4 and was waiting for my move its score dropped from a plus to a minus. It was quite a drop and so I let it replay the move and with Rf1 it regained a plus score. Since when is going to a minus a bad move you ask? I would say that if you have a slight advantage in the score and you go to a minus, then you played a bad move. It may not mean the game is lost, but if another move such as Rf1 keeps the plus score - then a4 was a bad move. That is my opinion. If you disagree, fine! I am not going to drag this out. Mark, I have too many things to do to keep this going. It's after 2 am and I should have gone to bed hours ago. My wife has been waiting and... Have a good night. Maybe we can continue tomorrow, though it appears we are not going to convince the other to cause an agreement on this issue. _____________________________ >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.