Author: Uri Blass
Date: 10:08:28 03/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2001 at 11:51:32, Fernando Villegas wrote: >On March 06, 2001 at 11:21:07, Mogens Larsen wrote: > >>On March 06, 2001 at 08:14:33, Fernando Villegas wrote: >> >>>What does it means? Well, seems that you like complex, scientifically worded >>>sentences that are more obscure than clarifying. Of course I never said that >>>programs must be equally strong, no matter the hardware: what I said was that: >> >>I think you missed the word "relative". > >I did not miss it. But there is a great gap between relative and absolute. You >are right to use the word if the distance is somewhat proportionate, but not if >it is not. Any program plays better with more time or better hardware, but any >top program does not show such a big difference between short and long time. >Nevertheles, all this is obsolete as much it refers to G and F versions. I do >not sustain the same for H version,. It would not be objetive... >> >>>a) the difference between my purchased version of gandalf and the one running in >>>Paderborn was too big. >> >>How did you know? You didn't have the Paderborn version in question; thereby no >>foundation for comparison. Instead I had to endure ramblings about the problems >>of neglected hardware and lack of consumer service. There's no obvious >>relationship to the original question. Especially without any substance. > > >The base for comparison was the sheer good perfomance of Gandalf in Paderborn >comnpared with what I was testing myself with my games. > >> >>>b) AND THAT I did not like what I had. Yes, that kind of judgments you look with >>>a disdainful mood. "Very subjetive". I forgot you are the brother of Mr Spock, >>>sorry. >> >>And now everything is honky dorey. I'm looking forward to seeing examples where >>the two versions differ significantly in style. >> > >You can compare yourself H version and the others. It is very clear. And I am >thankful it is so. It is clear for other readers only if you give positions when Gandalf4.32h plays better move than Gandalf4.32f or Gandalf4.32g It is not clear from some games that you played because it is possible that in the games that you played against 4.32f,g you were lucky to push 4.32f,g to positions that it does not understand when in the games against 4.32h it did not happen. I do not say that you are wrong but only that the argument of playing some games against both programs is not convinvcing. 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.