Author: stuart taylor
Date: 09:58:35 06/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 06, 2001 at 12:03:54, Daniel Clausen wrote: >Why? Maybe CM8000 ist not as bad as some people (would like to) think it is. =) > >Regards, > >Sargon Well, besides the first 4 games (which might have been a fluke) CM8K is convincingly scoring higher than Tiger 14. So if one part of its style makes it as good as todays tops, the other parts of it's style has a very long way to go to make it a ballanced program. I should say NOW READ CAREFULLY, that according to this, CM9K and even CM10K might play worse than Tiger 14, in a match, because they would have then been manipulated away from succeeding against Tiger in this way, so as to be more consistently better against other styles too. Hopefully CM11K or CM12K will be legitimately,(i.e. in a ballanced, expected way) atleast as good as the above results against Tiger 14. S.Taylor
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.