Author: Mark Young
Date: 11:40:06 07/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 1999 at 14:28:40, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: > >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. :) So you found the winning line for white, well then, please show it. > >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.