Author: Mark Young
Date: 20:27:06 07/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 1999 at 22:56:28, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: > >On July 24, 1999 at 21:18:38, Mark Young wrote: > >>On July 24, 1999 at 19:22:26, blass uri wrote: >> >>>I do not know enough about chess to decide if the moves a4 and h4 are the right >>>moves. >>> >>>It is clear that my hiarcs evaluated a4 as not the best move after 3 hours and >>>prefered Rf1 but it only proved that my hiarcs believed after a long time that >>>a4 is not the best move(Hiarcs7 may be wrong in this evaluation so it does not >>>prove that a4 is not the best move). >>>I do not know enough about chess to know which move is really best in the >>>position. >>> >>>I do not see a problem with the fact that another hiarcs has another opinion >>>because of the following possible reasons: >>>1)another hiarcs may have another learning file >>>2)Hiarcs is not deterministic >> >>You are correct Hiarcs is not deterministic, as you know my hiarcs 7.32 sticks >>with a4 after 3 hours and depth 12. But the issue never was would hiarcs 7.32 >>play another move. That issue only came about because this is what Mel based his >>opinion on that a4 must be a blunder because other >____________________________ > >I do not consider what I say is a bad move to mean the same thing as a blunder. >A blunder changes the position dramatically. A bad move is simply a poor choice >when there is a better move. It is not because my other programs felt a4 was bad >that I said what I did. I stated a4 was a bad move because Hiarcs refused to >play it again and insisted on Rf1 with a better score. In my opinion, if a >program selects one of two moves that results in a clearly better score, then >the other move must be considered a bad move for the program would not repeat >it. I believe that is quite logical thinking. >___________________ > >programs don't play it and >>because hiarcs is not deterministic it choose another move when mel forced it to >>think on the position again. Then came to the mistaken conclusion hiarcs 7.32 >>did not play a4 again because its leaning fuction saw it as a mistake. Then he >>takes this mistaken canclusion about this position as proof that Hiarcs 7.32 is >>not that good. When the facts are he never looked at the position himself and >>has no idea if a4 is good or bad in fact. Very reckless..... >____________________ > >There was no need for me to look into why Hiarcs would not repeat a4 when it is >quite apparent from the better score it gave with Rf1 was evidently a function >of the learning process - a logical conclusion based on what the program >evaluated and insisted on playing. If it wasn't the learning function that >prohibited a4 from being repeated, then I must assume Hiarcs is one dizzy >program. :) >_______________________________> Its not the program that is dizzy. :) >>> >>> >>>About the second position: >>>7k/6p1/7p/pR6/1p2N3/6P1/2r4P/6K1 w - - 0 1 >>> >>>I think that h4 is leading to a draw and the same for Nc5 >>>It is easy for white to get draw after Nc5 Ra2 (for example Nb7 a4 Rxb4 a3 >>>Ra4 Rb2 Rxa3 Rxb7) >>> >>>white do not have to play Nb7 but I do not see a way for white to make progress >>>in a different way. >>> >>>Uri
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.