Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 13:27:32 11/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 06, 2000 at 16:09:04, Peter Skinner wrote: >I truely am not biased. I have seen impressive results of Tiger II, and is >definately stronger than Tiger 12.0 that captured #1 on the SSDF last year. I >have some results already to back me, Shredder as to my knowledge has never been >#1 on the SSDF, where Tiger has. > >Simply, Tiger II is stronger than Tiger I, I would expect the same result. > >There have been many fixes in Tiger II that make it even stronger. The hashing >bug is fixed.. not longer limited there, and the book is incredible. I have no reason to doubt that everything you say about Tiger II is true. And it is probably stronger than the current programs on the SSDF list judging by the results posted. Even though there haven't been that many games at tournament time control, but that is understandable. However, that doesn't give you the right to assume that the independent Shredder testers are producing bogus or rigged results without a shred of proof. That's my only objection. 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.