Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:39:44 08/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 28, 1999 at 01:57:52, odell hall wrote: >On August 27, 1999 at 23:11:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 27, 1999 at 17:59:33, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>On August 27, 1999 at 13:26:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On August 27, 1999 at 13:07:13, Mark Rawlings wrote: >>>> >>>>>It would be nice if, say Roman or another GM, agreed to seriously play Crafty a >>>>>series of 40/2 games on ICC over the next month or so and report the results. >>>>>That would clear up a lot! >>>>> >>>>>Mark >>>> >>>> >>>>It is very difficult to make this happen, even though I talk to Roman frequently >>>>on the phone. IE he would not ask me to spend a half-day working on some >>>>program for him, and this is roughly equivalent to asking him to spend a half >>>>day playing a 40/2 game. It takes a lot of time. And he is the only one that >>>>I would really feel like might accept my request, but I really don't want to >>>>put him on the spot like that and force him to say yes or no... >>>> >>>>Data will slowly become available... >>>> >>>>Ed is doing a lot to make this happen. >>> >>>Hi Bob, >>> >>>I agree it's very time consuming. That's one of the reasons doing it once >>>a month. You could do the same? Maybe you underestimate Crafty, who knows! >>> >>>Ed >> >> >>I would not ask a GM to play 40/2 without offering to pay. And if I offered >>to pay, I suspect my wife would have something to say. A _lot_ to say in >>fact. :) >> >>But I might ask around... I have played several 40/2 games vs GM players, >>but they were logged in as guests, and asked me to _not_ say anything about >>the games at all because they wanted to try some opening preparation... > >Can't you atleast say who Won? After all that would not compromise any opening >experimentation. Crafty 'won' more than it lost. But 'won' is perhaps a bad word, because I specifically forced it to play some opening line upon request (a pain, but we do a lot for GM players.. :) ) and then the GM would try his pet analysis. Which often had holes in it. So to say that Crafty 'won' would be a misnomer, as on once occasion over a couple of weeks, it played the same GM 4-5 times, same opening, as he 'tuned' his analysis based on a few cute tactics that Crafty revealed. And in general, the games didn't go to mate as they were meaningless games anyway... But if all had been played to completion, it would have done well. Of course, that was _exactly_ what this particular GM wanted, as he was looking for problems...
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.