Author: stuart taylor
Date: 17:31:16 06/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 06, 2001 at 19:45:58, Chessfun wrote: >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. I mean that if CM8K seems to be so good against Chess Tiger 14, it might be 4 or 5 more upgrades until it looks convincingly even better than that, in a match with CT, because overall, CT is certainly considerably more succesful in chess results than CM8K. 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.