Author: Harald Faber
Date: 23:50:38 11/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 2000 at 10:37:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>Again: Shredder5 = London = *1* tournament. >>Tiger played *2* tourneys. > > >Again, over the last 4 years, shredder {x} won three of the four tournaments, >and finished right at the top in the other one. That is pretty convincing. >Shredder 3 thumped everyone during its "time". Shredder 4 did the same thing >last year. We don't have shredder 5, but past history is usually a pretty >good indicator. *It doesn't take much to extrapolate that it may well be the >best again _this_ year. in 7 months or so there will be another WMCCC event. >We get one more data point. You say: *It doesn't take much to extrapolate that it M A Y well be the best again _this_ year.* Finally you got it. Concluding from former results BTW M A Y be incorrect, and besides it is not given that Shredder3+4 were ahead of the competitors. Strong, yes, but nothing more. There always has been a bunch of equal strong programs without an outstanding program.
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.