Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 07:43:32 11/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 2000 at 10:22:56, Thorsten Czub wrote: >Hi Mogens, nice to here from you again ! > >the position after Kh1 is IMO also lost. That doesn't exactly contribute to your high opinion about GT. Not being able to decide the game, depsite it not being blitz. >>And the reason why Gambit Tiger couldn't execute the attack was also >>misevaluation. The argument that it found the right move later is irrelevant, >>because the same can be argued on behalf of Crafty using a previous move I >>imagine. > >?! the mistake is IMO 41.Rxe6 My point was that the time issue is irrelevant. If given enough time then you can find better movers for Crafty and GT long before move 39. >as usual you are very friendly, dear mogens. It was nonsense and you know it very well. You got stranded in off topic land like a beached whale. A smokescreen is probably the correct term. >ok - you and bob still believe gambit-tiger is normal and there is no >new paradigm. you both belong to the old paradigm cheerleader-group. GT is based with minor alterations on Chess Tiger 13.0. So "new paradigm" doesn't make sense since Chess Tiger isn't different from other knowledge propelled bean counters. Adding specific knowledge and tuning evaluation isn't a new paradigm, no matter how hard you try to stretch the definition. If I'm a cheerleader then you're a groupie and my uniform is much nicer. 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.