Author: Chessfun
Date: 11:34:09 10/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 2000 at 14:29:25, Enrique Irazoqui 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. > >Maybe there is no need to be so literal. I talk the same way: zillions, tons, >etc. I want to have dinner and I just told my son that he had me waiting for >hours, when in fact his damn shower took only a few minutes. I have no trouble >understanding what Bob means with his zillions and hundreds. > >Anyway, 20*30*x is plenty big. > >Enrique I have trouble understanding, but it seems zillions is more than hundreds, by how many we will never know. When making a statement on a programs performance it would be nice to see some accuracy in the statements being made. Sarah.
This page took 0.01 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.