Author: Mark Young
Date: 16:33:14 09/01/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 01, 1999 at 19:11:56, Heiko Mikala wrote: >On September 01, 1999 at 19:01:32, Mark Young wrote: > >>On September 01, 1999 at 18:26:48, Heiko Mikala wrote: >>> >>>game/60', 2 * Cyrix/IBM 6x86MX PR-300 >>> >>> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>>1 Hiarcs 7.32 ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 0 1 ½ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13.0/17 >>>2 CSTal II ½ 1 ½ 0 ½ 0 1 0 ½ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.0/17 >> >>This is the same kind of results I have seen posted many times by many >>different members with other top programs playing CST. >> >>I just don't know how TC get all those good results when he tests CST against >>the top programs. > >Well, if you only take the first 9 games of this match, it becomes this: > > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >1 Hiarcs 7.32 ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 0 1 ½ 5/9 >2 CSTal II ½ 1 ½ 0 ½ 0 1 0 ½ 4/9 > >Not that bad, is it? > >As I said, I don't understand what happened during the second half of the match. >But these series are not uncommon in long matches. Nevertheless, I *think* that >Hiarcs is stronger than CSTal II, but this is only a feeling. Not proven yet. Yes it is because I have more then just those games to go on, when you have a spread this far in strength as CST against the other top programs, it does not take many games to say which program is stronger, its just a matter of how much stronger are they then CST. > >Greetings, > >Heiko.
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.