Author: James T. Walker
Date: 14:56:01 10/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 25, 2001 at 16:59:13, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On October 25, 2001 at 16:53:33, James T. Walker wrote: > >>Hello Jeroen, >>Thanks for the info. This begs the question as to why Deep Shredder was not >>tested then. Maybe it was because of some hidden politics? Was it because >>Millenium did not allow it? > >Probably a combination of Millennium not wanting to see Shredder tested and >animosity from the side of SSDF. The switch to Chessbase has removed this >obstacle. > >>If so, that's too bad because I think Deep Shredder >>was an improvement over Shredder 5. That would have possibly put Deep Shredder >>close to the top. > >I'm of the same opinion. It's not unreasonable to assume that Shredder 5.32 is a >hybrid of Shredder 5 and Deep Shredder. According to SMK (IIRC) Shredder 5.32 >isn't just a port of Shredder 5. > >Regards, >Mogens Hi Mogens, Thanks for the info. I suspected that S532 was probably close to Deep Shredder and not just S5 ported but I don't have S532 so could not tell. Regards, Jim
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.