Author: Rémi Coulom
Date: 00:21:43 07/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 28, 1999 at 02:09:25, Dann Corbit wrote:
>On July 28, 1999 at 02:07:54, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>>Can you summarize how well it fared?
>Once I have all the results (I am especially anxious for Albert's) I will
>summarize them.
Thanks for your time and all your comments. I would like to repeat that
positions that contain both bm and am fields are solved when all bm moves are
given a better evaluation thal all am moves. As a consequence, there are some
positions where the analysis given is not enough to decide whether the problem
was solved or not.
So far, results for Crafty and Hiarcs are:
0000 Crafty and Hiarcs take with the Knight. This position looks wrong.
0001 H : OK
C : wrong
0002 H : OK
C : do not know but seems OK
0003 H : seems OK
C : do not know (Bf1 has to be evaluated better than Bxc5 too)
0004 H : OK, but with hesitation
C : wrong
0005 too easy
0006 H : probably OK
C : OK
0007 H : OK
C : OK
0008 H : OK
C : OK
0009 H : OK, with hesitation
C : OK
0010 H : OK
C : OK
0011 H : do not know. probably wrong
C : do not know
0012 H : OK
C : OK
0013 H : do not know
C : OK
0014 H : OK
C : OK
0015 H : OK, but takes a long time
C : OK
0016 H : OK
C : OK
0017 H : OK
C : OK
0018 H : OK
C : OK
0019 H : OK, hesitation
C : wrong
I am not sure about this positions anyway. Besides, it involves quite a lot of
tactics which does not make it a good positional test.
0020 H : OK
C : OK
For 0021, 0022 and 0023 Hiarcs, Crafty and Fritz agree. My problem here is that
I do not understand these positions. Why are am moves bad if they are ? I'd be
interested in human opinion here.
Remi
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.