View Single Post
  #5   Report Post  
Old July 9th 10, 01:01 AM posted to,
Mark Houlsby[_2_] Mark Houlsby[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2010
Posts: 292
Default Rybka 4 is stronger...ergo Rybka 3 was weak

On 9 July, 00:39, The Master wrote:
On Jul 8, 6:32*pm, raylopez99 wrote:

On Jul 8, 10:45*pm, The Master wrote:

I would like to see some examples of these purported awards. *Maybe
those games were just anomalies.

I would like to see examples of bad analysis that you claim exists.

* OK. *See my next post in this thread in oh, perhaps an hour from

To date, most chess programs do competent analysis, often finding the
best move in under five seconds.

* Why change the subject? *Finding the best move is quite another
from generating high quality textual game annotations (for which
awards are claimed to have been won).

But, as usual, The Minor, you can spend 15 minutes with a verbose post
to make your point but you can't spend 1 minute to upload a game of
yours to illustrate your points.

Uh, Phil-- you *only now* asked for a specific example. *Sometimes I
to wonder if your mind has not deteriorated to the point where you
don't even
know where you are in time. *Were you not still young, people might
to imagine that you are suffering from a severe age-related mental

* I will be looking forward to seeing your own (peculiar) take on
these odd,
computer generated textual commentaries. *Please do not attempt to
move improvements-- this will be exceedingly difficult as Fritz is
your vast

Exactly how vast *is* Fritz, Greg?

You're replying to Ray Lopez, not Phil Innes.