Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:38:40 11/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 2000 at 07:11:44, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On November 14, 2000 at 21:19:25, Mogens Larsen wrote: >>I haven't commented on the validity of the pgn you posted. The problem was your >>claims about other programs (imaginary data) and your inability to understand >>the simple connection between Tiger and Gambit Tiger (unfounded speculation). >>And I was right in my perception of both cases since you haven't been able to >>supply anything remotely tangible regarding these issues. >> >>Mogens. > >i do not comment on this mogens. >all my friends who have seen the games of gambit tiger, even >my friend bernd kohlweyer who liked the petrosian playing style >of rebel-tiger12 does understand that gambit-tiger is something new. > >he is ONLY a chess player (2420 ELO). And even HE understands. I guess Bruce >understood too. > >we do understand it so good that we can even predict which move it will play >next. If you can always predict which move it is going to play then it must be weak because it means that you can play like it. The truth is that you can predict the moves of it only in part of the cases. You can predict the move that it is going to play better if you know the program better but it is the same for other programs. Uri
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.