Author: Chessfun
Date: 06:51:08 07/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 2001 at 01:14:39, Harald Faber wrote: >On July 23, 2001 at 17:25:55, G. R. Morton wrote: > >>I seem to have mixed impressions from some of the Info I've read. Opinions? >>Thanks in advance. > >SSDF *pretends* that GambitTiger 2 is stronger, They don't "pretend" their results and others suggest it is so. but see that they test >ChessTiger 14 in the Chessbase-version As I recall from beta testing this was Christophe's idea. which has NO ADJUSTED opening book in >opposite to the Chesspartner-version. While it may not have an adjusted book it has a better book learner. And the difference between them in SSDF is >marginal, That is true, as it also likely is, if you compute the ratings from your games. so, in spite of less games I think that my tourney says more the >"truth" huh, did I miss something. You play a few games and that says more of the truth. This dispite the fact that you previously posted that if you played more games you would likely get totally different results. than SSDF because in my comparison both Tigers play the same opponents >(did they in SSDF? I don't think so) Again as you have yourself said, the limited number of games your playing leads even you to believe that with more games you would have totally different results. So the fact your playing the same opponents is meaningless. and both are the Chesspasrtner-versions >WITH ADJUSTED opening books. As you seem to take issue in other posts with learning, are you re-setting Tigers CP learning after each match? If not then why take issue of others not doing so?. 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.