Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 04:56:04 10/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 15, 2000 at 07:17:21, Uri Blass wrote: >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? I almost never play 40 in 2. 40/40 is my usual time control and when I must rush I play 40/20, game/30 or so. So far there is no evidence about Gambit scoring better at slow time controls. I thought it would, tried it and found out that its performance was roughly the same at Game/10, 40/20 and 40/60. I only played 20 game matches, so we may need more games and more opponents to find out. Enrique >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.