help bot wrote:
wrote:
Sanny wrote:
Sheesh! How can you pack 'em together so closely
without insisting there is no recogniseable difference in
playing strength?
Perhaps, 1400 1460 1480 1490 1500 is a fairer spread. I notice some
difference between Beginner and Master, but none when moving up/down
one level.
Increasing a chess engine's analysis time from 5s to 10s has more
impact on its results than increasing it from 60s to 120s--the law of
diminishing returns.
The number of moves it takes to achieve checkmate
in no way determines strength. The most that can be
said is that a weak player is more likely to take longer
to win, due to poor technique. Besides, each game is
different, resulting in different winning methods and very
different lengths.
Oh, I know that! :-)
In August, when it was 1300 and he was claiming it was 1500, he said
his engine was strong because I took me 42 moves to beat it. Now it's
perhaps 1400 and he's claiming it's 1600. The more things change, the
more they stay the same.
Last night (this morning, actually) I was so tired I
unwittingly left my Queen en prise against Sanny's
program. "No problemo", as the Terminator would
say; I eventually won anyway.
Are you serious?? I would like to see that.
I get the feeling, when the computer merely defends planlessly, I
should be able to formulate a plan and destroy it... but that's one of
my weak areas.
---
likesforests
Become a Chess Expert --
http://likesforests.blogspot.com