Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 06:47:05 11/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 2000 at 08:53:38, Thorsten Czub wrote: [snip drivel] >maybe you look to the title of the thread where i posted a few of my >autoplayer-results against junior. The title should have been "Junior6a - Gambit-Tigers". >do you have ANY data that shows that tiger is weaker than i do say ? >feel free to post. Nope. I questioned the "well known" statement, not GT's strength. Get your facts straight. >so what is your point ? >these games against junior where GT gets 50% are the weakest result >it gets. >beta testers have posted enough data that shows that GT is the strongest >in the moment. No, they haven't. A few single games here and there doesn't constitute proof. But I have faith in the work by Sarah and SSDF, so things should change. >where is YOUR data that contradicts this ? >i am waiting. I never said anything about GT's strength, because that would be unethical. Just argued that the "well known" claim is unsubstantiated and still is. You confuse issues and is unable to comprehend even the simplest rules of argumentation. That's not exactly my fault. >i do show games. examples. data. The games prove very little and your analysis of the examples is seriously flawed. >here it is to talk about computerchess, not about your philosophical >hear-said. With the exception of Kuhn I imagine. >what is the problem with playing with different gt versions ? If you're unaware of the necessity of comparable data when it comes to analysis then there's little I can do. >is 0.95 showing different results than 1.0 against junior ? no. You don't know that based on the games you've posted. >so what is your point ? My point has already been proven correct. 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.