Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 14:41:22 11/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 18, 2001 at 14:20:58, Harald Faber wrote: >No, it was just 9 rounds, almost anything is possible. nonsense. the explanation must be in the games, or the machines. or the settings the humans set up. >I know. TRhe biggest disappointment of this tourney. Unfortunately it was myself >who operated Rebel. =:-( do we have information about the hardware that was used and about the settings of openings and style ? >Take a look at Rebels games yourself, they are available at least on my homepage >at www.harald-faber.de. i have seen this too late. will do so tomorrow. >Nimzo IS weak, Rebel played...not well. nonsense. nimzo8 was never weak. the versions before where shit. but 8 is ok, for the first time since nimzo guernica this nimzo version was a real progress. why do you say it is weak when it isn't. >Slowest machine was A-1000 for Nimzo aha. NIMZO is weak. it seems to me the hardware of nimzo was weaker than the hardware the others used. what else was with nimzo. setting ? opening book? tablebases ? hash ? >and LambChop, fastest machine was XP1900+. >Kasten Bauermeister already wrote that in the CSS-board which unfortunately >crashed recently but maybe an archive exists?! >Some used own and/or "tuned" opening books, aha. nimzo is weak !! now we come closer to the reasons. > some used the original ones. some did, some not. WHO ? >Settings have been default except Chessmaster which have been by Stefan Kleinert despite opening books you mean. >(CM 8777). Shredder 5 played the last few rounds with "normal" (default is >aggressive). The others played default. Time control in most cases has been >40/120+60. hm.- thank you harald.
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.