Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 09:05:06 10/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2000 at 07:33:22, pavel wrote: >dun forget IMO... I didn't. >I agree those are results limited to my machine... >so whats your opinion about gandalf playing strength? ...lets here it from you. >:) Difficult to say with precision. I think that the rating calculated by Frank Q. is quite accurate concerning WinBoard, ie. around 2600. This varies with timecontrol. The results by Christian Koch and Frank Quisinsky suggests that Gandalf is the strongest WinBoard engine when it comes to standard and quite strong at blitz too. http://www.icdchess.com/forums/1/message.shtml?131333 (blitz results) The rating under CB GUI is slightly lower because it's not a native engine, even though the implementation isn't too shabby. A native version would be interesting. >IMO, IMO, IMO, IMO , IMO.......... That doesn't make you immune to critiscism. If you just want to watch your opinion on print use a diary. >hmmm, arent you the the one who posted in winboard forum, results of few games >by program X, against other programs and went in to conclusion that "this" >engine is better (or worse) than "that" engine? No. >yes there is not enough games, and also sometimes you have to go through the >games, not just, > "play the games, see the results and jump in to conclusions" > >yes I am pathetic, >my speculations are pathetic No, just your speculations given the data you have in your possession. >"you are god" (always right) Yes, I and don't even rest on Sunday's :o). Mogens.
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.