Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 15:09:26 11/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2001 at 17:37:38, Marcus Kaestner wrote: >there is no need that you like the list. Correct. >but there is also no need to disqualify the list as a joke. Yes, there is. >1.there are no strange settings included. most of the special settings are very >good and useful. and no other list shows that. Fortunately most lists avoid to obscure the general picture with explorer, challenger, y13 and triple brain experiments, so that is certainly true. In another fun list there was four Fritz versions represented, so I'm also a little disappointed. And there are certainly room for more "good and useful" Chessmaster settings. >2.the different time controls are the goal of the list. so you can see which >program is the best "overall" and not under special laboratory conditions which >no one has at home. You can't judge which is "the best overall" program due to the inconsistancies in the engine representation and gameformat. >3.there are also separated lists for blitz,rapid and tournament chess. The page mentions that fact. Not that publishing three lists would be that much better. >and: if you laugh or not, all the lists have different leaders. but overall >tiger is the best (on single). That may or may not be true under various circumstances. An indiscriminatory "let's gather anything we can get our hands on in a big pile"-list certainly doesn't answer that question. >so ignore the list if you dislike it, but stay away from showing disrespect. >it´s not fair to the people which are spending so much time. Well, I think your methods of accumulating data is the biggest disrespect towards the hardworking people in question. >not very gentle, your comment. Not very useful, your list. Regards, Mogens
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.