Author: stuart taylor
Date: 15:24:19 01/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 09, 2000 at 06:06:45, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >On January 08, 2000 at 19:46:09, stuart taylor wrote: > >> >> >> >> >>That's terrible! But maybe other programs would not put themselves in such >>mess. Tiger atleast has -4.Maybe he understands. > >The evaluations I posted are from the point of view of white, so the -0.04 of >Tiger means that black is better by 4/100 of a pawn. > >Other programs may or may not play 21... e5, but if they don't is for the wrong >reasons. What makes e5 a blunder is that it blocks the bishop on g6, and the >evals I posted show that none of these programs realize what this means. > >>It wouldn't be -300 as >>the bishop can still be activated by losing a pawn- P-f5!-the only way. > >Right. But no program would give up a pawn without seeing a reason, and they >don't. Besides, it might mean losing the bishop pair... :( > >>But in one of these follow ups, even tiger is not too clever-taking longest >>to find K-g3. What a shame! so this year we still don't have the ideal >>program. S. Taylor > >The ideal program solves the game of chess, and no, no program is ideal. But >Tiger finds Kg3, while others don't. > >Enrique > Oh! I'm sorry! I thought all the programs found k-g3 but tiger took the longest. By ideal program, I mean that its weakest points are not all that bad. Almost like a bug. Thank you! S.Taylor
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.