TalkChess.com

Geonerd wrote:[profanity], this is a pedantic, argumentative bunch!

Have any of the people lecturing the world on "correct statistics" even looked at the bleeping games???
IMO, Houdini has a clear 'pull' over Komodo in the middle-game, and is generally the one with winning chances. Combine that with the current score and - yea - I'd call it a 'thrashing.'

It's the search gap. Gettit ? Out of this search gap comes all the naive speculation and nonsense that gets written. The program has every style and no style, it has no consistency to play against, only materialism, you can't learn from it, tomorrow it will be different (found another mine in the search gap), only the difference is just a relection of - whoops, trod on another mine. What can you do with such a program ? Use the take-back key and try again ? - and imagine this helps you improve or learn ?

Now, I claim this search gap has no meaning or understanding possibilities for a human. That a human can't relate his heuristics to it. That you can't extract the knowledge out of it and represent it to a human. That you can't even extract the knowledge out of it and represent it to yourself. You can't get heuristics from it. So I call it counting beans - useless for us humans.

Now, take a knowledge program, you can play it and see the play style. You can try and work out what it does and why. There'll be a reason, based on human chess heuristics. The game has plan, and flow, and doesn't consist of hidden minefields. It won't grind you down by search, it will try speculative ideas which it might, or might not, be able to get to work. You can see the speculative ideas, and try them yourself. I think you can, as a human, relate to this type of program. If you know the programmer, maybe you can see patterns into the program that come from him, and so on. I think these types of programs are infused with some force, in so far as any chunk of silicon can be.

I hate materialists.

Chris Whittington

Geonerd wrote:[profanity], this is a pedantic, argumentative bunch!

Have any of the people lecturing the world on "correct statistics" even looked at the bleeping games???
IMO, Houdini has a clear 'pull' over Komodo in the middle-game, and is generally the one with winning chances. Combine that with the current score and - yea - I'd call it a 'thrashing.'

Jouni wrote:6 - 1 for Houdini. With traditional human Wch rules it's over! Minor interest: will Houdini get black win? I predict yes.

Dann Corbit wrote:

Jouni wrote:6 - 1 for Houdini. With traditional human Wch rules it's over! Minor interest: will Houdini get black win? I predict yes.

Right now, there are 55 out of 100 games not completed with score:
Komodo + 1 = 34 - 7
Which means it is possible to finish +56 = 34 -7
Though admittedly (cough) highly unlikely.

So I am wondering what kind of cock-eyed traditional rules mandate a win for the side with advantage at this point? It is (quite frankly) absurd unless they have "skunk" or "mercy" rules.

Dann Corbit wrote:

Jouni wrote:6 - 1 for Houdini. With traditional human Wch rules it's over! Minor interest: will Houdini get black win? I predict yes.

Right now, there are 55 out of 100 games not completed with score:
Komodo + 1 = 34 - 7
Which means it is possible to finish +56 = 34 -7
Though admittedly (cough) highly unlikely.