Author: Melvin S. Schwartz
Date: 11:28:40 07/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 1999 at 14:01:40, Mark Young wrote: >On July 24, 1999 at 13:50:20, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: > >> >>On July 24, 1999 at 04:43:06, Terry Ripple wrote: >> >>>Hi Mel, >>> I did exactly as you instructed and ran it from that Position on 40/2hr. and >>>when Hiarcs7.32 made the move a4 (0.59/9), i then left Hiarcs continue to think >>>on my time as if i was playing Hiarcs in a tournament setting and at no time did >>>Hiarcs ever think it was in the "negative" and in fact Hiarcs kept a small >>>plus(.46/10) for up to a "full 10 min." of its thinking on my time! I then >>>repeated the same position before the move a4 and Hiarcs "STILL" wants to make >>>the very "Same Move"- "a4". The position learning was working because before it >>>showed in its analysis 2.a4, Nd7 3.a5, etc. but after i left it think on my time >>>and tried the position once again it then was showing 2.a4, Nd7 3.Nf5,etc. >>> This leads me to believe that if Mark and i are getting the same conclusions >>>from our Hiarcs Program, that it dont take a "Rocket Scientist" to draw a >>>conclusion that there must be something thats conflicting in your Hiarcs set-up! >>> >>>Regards, Terry >> >>Something wrong with my set up? Interesting. Now, what could possibly be wrong? >>You tell me. I was playing the game and after a4 the score went down and so I >>let Hiarcs repeat the move twice and twice it played Rf1 with a plus score. >>That's it. Period. Now, the other move by Hiarcs in this game, which Hiarcs >>played and stayed, was 20.Qd2. Do you or your friend who is PA State Champion >>think that was a good move? > >Stop jumping ship, You are the one making claims about Hiarcs 7.32. Before we >now jump to 3rd position you need to retract your claims on the first two >position, or show us lines why the Hiarcs 7.32 moves were a blunder. I have not >even looked at the 3rd position yet, as I am Taking the Time to analyse the >positions. I know Hiarcs 7.32 plays blunders, the interesting question is, how >many positions of yours much we look at before your claim becomes true. ________________________ I described a4 as a bad move. I also stated why I believed a4 was a bad move. The game continued with Rf1 and so I cannot tell you why it's a bad move other than Hiarcs chose not to repeat it. If that isn't enough - end of conversation. For the record, I'll repeat here what I told you in my original post entitled "To Mark Young". I said I hope I'm not misunderstood here for I do not say Hiarcs is a bad program. Hiarcs is a good program, but not a great program. Those may not be the exact words but they say the same thing as in my post. You can look back and see for yourself what the exact words were. In the other game where you claim Black has winning chances, I can only say you need not analyze my games anymore. :) 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.