Author: Chessfun
Date: 16:45:58 06/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 06, 2001 at 12:58:35, stuart taylor wrote: >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 CM9K, CM10K, CM11K and CM12K. I'm trying to read carefully but somethings missing. Sarah.
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.