Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 12:18:41 11/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 2000 at 07:38:40, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 15, 2000 at 07:11:44, Thorsten Czub wrote: > >>On November 14, 2000 at 21:19:25, Mogens Larsen wrote: >>>I haven't commented on the validity of the pgn you posted. The problem was your >>>claims about other programs (imaginary data) and your inability to understand >>>the simple connection between Tiger and Gambit Tiger (unfounded speculation). >>>And I was right in my perception of both cases since you haven't been able to >>>supply anything remotely tangible regarding these issues. >>> >>>Mogens. >> >>i do not comment on this mogens. >>all my friends who have seen the games of gambit tiger, even >>my friend bernd kohlweyer who liked the petrosian playing style >>of rebel-tiger12 does understand that gambit-tiger is something new. >> >>he is ONLY a chess player (2420 ELO). And even HE understands. I guess Bruce >>understood too. >> >>we do understand it so good that we can even predict which move it will play >>next. > >If you can always predict which move it is going to play then it must be weak >because it means that you can play like it. > >The truth is that you can predict the moves of it only in part of the cases. > >You can predict the move that it is going to play better if you know the program >better but it is the same for other programs. > >Uri If you all think that gambit tiger is so new then your not expirienced at all in the first place. Rember Rebel10 with antiGM ? It is based on this 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.