Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:17:21 10/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 15, 2000 at 06:10:30, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >On October 15, 2000 at 05:08:53, Harald Faber wrote: > >>On October 14, 2000 at 06:00:33, Mogens Larsen wrote: >> >>>The match is certainly very interesting and it suggests that the Tiger 13.0 beta >>>is a very strong engine. Not a big surprise considering the amount of successful >>>games posted here recently. The same naturally goes for Gambit Tiger. >>>Congratulations to Christophe Theron for that achievement. >>> >>>However, I do find the exchange afterwards slightly dubious from the perspective >>>of objective information. Especially since everyone, except Jorge Pichard, are >>>Rebel beta testers by own admisson. Don't you have a mailing list or something >>>similar where you can share your feelings, impressions and general well-being? >>> >>>This thread, and other similar "private" discussions among Rebel beta testers >>>here, is borderline commercial exhortation IMO. > >No. It is sheer enthusiasm, in my opinion quite justified. > >>We, the Beta-testers, cannot make it right. If we post games and results, guys >>like you complain. If we don't, others demand them. > >True. As Howard puts it, "damned if you do, damned if you don't." > >On the other hand, you also complained a year ago when I posted results of Tiger >11.75. Remember your comments about my "hype"? And I only posted results and >games, all of them, not a selection. So I find more or less understable if some >people get irritated for what may look like propaganda, even when it is not. > >>>Bombarding the unsuspecting >>>consumer with biased comments én masse seem to be the intention. >> >> >>Biased? Because of posting only good results and games? What can we do when >>there are no bad ones? > >There are no bad ones, but not everything is glamourous either. Gambit crushes >Fritz 6a/b, Shredder 4, Nimzo 7.32, Goliath light, but has trouble with Junior >6a and Hiarcs 7.32 (scoring about 50%), and in my games Tiger beats Gambit >neatly. This last result I find particularly interesting. It depends on the definition of bad results. 50% against Hiarcs7.32 and Junior6a can be described as bad results. The question is what is your expectation before the testing. If you expect gambit tiger to be slightly better than Fritz6a/b than 50% against weaker program is certainly a bad result when crushing fritz6a/b is certainly a good result. I am also interested in the time control. I am interesting in 2 hours/40 moves because I read that the impression of testers is that gambit tiger is better at slow time control. Does the default tiger beat gambit tiger also in 2 hours/40 moves? 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.