Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:25:47 10/04/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 04, 2000 at 13:04:24, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 04, 2000 at 10:14:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 04, 2000 at 00:35:34, Timothy J. Frohlick wrote: >> >>>On October 03, 2000 at 20:46:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>Err.. exactly _what_ program won't kick a GM at blitz? I have seen GNU do it. >>>>I have seen everybody else do it too... >>>> >>>>This is hardly a distinguishing event. >>> >>>Dr. Hyatt, >>> >>>You are correct. One game does not mean much. Gambit Tiger made it look so >>>easy though and Mecking made some decent moves. We will see how good this >>>program is within the next six months. >>> >>>The audience that will be buying these type of programs will be most amused by >>>the style of play of Gambit Tiger. I am certain that you would enjoy it too. >>> >>> >>>Tim Frohlick >> >>My impression after watching hundreds of games between the new beta versions >>and Crafty is that it is very solid, has filled a couple of horrible endgame >>holes in the previous version, but I have not noticed any tendency to wildly >>attack at all. At least against Crafty on ICC and chess.net. > >My understanding is that Gambit tiger and the default version are different. > >I understood that gambit tiger is weaker than the default version of tiger >because the programmer had not enough time to work on tuning the evaluation and >it is going to be an option for the users to give them impression about the next >version of tiger. > >Uri OK... that was my misunderstanding then. I have simply been seeing games using the latest beta. If "gambit tiger" is a different program, I don't know whether I have seen that or not.
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.