<ttk5079@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:29b380e3-a6fd-4799-8db1-e2955b8ddac7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Feb 10, 3:18 pm, SBD <DrD...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Feb 10, 12:22 pm, Sanny <softta...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > I am not a bad player
>
> Yes, you are.
True. And only a chess ignoramus would think it takes a genius to
beat this mediocre-at-best program.
---
It takes a genious to raise a program?
Almost [every?] thing Sanny says is not true. If Sanny loses to a 12 move
mate, then he is what? 800? 600? His program seems to be 1200 based on
results against opponents, which considering his own rating is merely the
extent of the program's opening book.
But Sanny talks of all sorts of exhaulted things for it, which after 2
years
of 'even better now' pronouncemnts seem as dumb as the original, to actual
strong players. Doesn't matter Sanny if it is 1000 or 1500, that level is
simple **crushed** by anyone 2000+ rated.
Instead of hyping up your program, why don't you pay attention to why it
sucks? Human players need to do this! And you actually program the thing -
and you suck - so how come you don't follow any advice, while making such
idiotic claims for it?
After 2 years, you need to give up, since otherwise the only other thing
you
can do is extenhd the program with a massive opening book, and never lose
before move 15 where the book ends - which is what smart not-programmers
do
all the time, since most people don't know 10 moves of anything ;)
That's computer chess for you.
Phil Innes
|
