Author: Harald Faber
Date: 23:50:38 11/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 2000 at 10:37:46, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>Again: Shredder5 = London = *1* tournament.
>>Tiger played *2* tourneys.
>
>
>Again, over the last 4 years, shredder {x} won three of the four tournaments,
>and finished right at the top in the other one. That is pretty convincing.
>Shredder 3 thumped everyone during its "time". Shredder 4 did the same thing
>last year. We don't have shredder 5, but past history is usually a pretty
>good indicator. *It doesn't take much to extrapolate that it may well be the
>best again _this_ year. in 7 months or so there will be another WMCCC event.
>We get one more data point.
You say: *It doesn't take much to extrapolate that it
M A Y
well be the
best again _this_ year.*
Finally you got it.
Concluding from former results BTW M A Y be incorrect, and besides it is not
given that Shredder3+4 were ahead of the competitors. Strong, yes, but nothing
more. There always has been a bunch of equal strong programs without an
outstanding program.
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.