Author: Chessfun
Date: 11:01:15 10/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 2000 at 13:24:23, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 16, 2000 at 13:10:28, Chessfun wrote: > >>On October 16, 2000 at 12:55:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On October 16, 2000 at 11:30:44, Chessfun wrote: >>> >>>>On October 16, 2000 at 10:49:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>Show me the solid evidence that shows it works. I played a zillion games vs >>>>>CSTal (on ICC) using equal hardware. (P6/200 single cpu at the time). It >>>>>didn't work then. 2 of every 3 games ended in an endgame. and 9 of every 10 >>>>>of those ended in a loss for the speculative program. >>>> >>>> >>>>Now this zillion I have to see. >>>> >>>>Sarah. >>> >>> >>>I believe most understand the concept that "zillion" -> "large number". And >>>I mean _large_ number. Large -> 20 per day for several months. Many operated >>>directly by Chris. >> >> >>Ok now I get it. >>"Zillion" = Large Number = 20 per day for several? months. >>Hundreds = 87 or Two Hundred. >> >>Sarah. > >I do not remmeber that Bob claimed that hundreds=87. No he claimed Hundreds, then produced 87 with about 1/2 of those being Guests. Later he said he could produce 200, but didn't. Therefore Hundreds = 87 = Two hundred. >My understanding of the english language say that hundreds can be also two >hundreds and the number of hundreds is not clear when it is at least 2. My understanding is a number between 100 and 999. The original point I was making was that he didn't mean two hundred. Naturally this was a mistake as only he could determine what he meant in the original statement of hundreds. But IMO it's like a "zillion" no accurate figure just a number thrown up in the air. Sarah.
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.