Author: Roy Eassa
Date: 12:47:02 12/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2001 at 07:47:24, James Stacey wrote: >If you don't mind me saying, your post looks a bit like sour grapes. Why can't >you just admit that Gambit Tiger is no stronger than Gandalf. Instead of trying >to find excuses, why don't you give some credit to Gandalf. I am sure that many >hours of time have gone into the programming and testing of Gandalf also. > How do you account for the fact that Tiger has come out significantly ahead of Gandalf in about 95% of the dozens of tournaments run in the past 1/2 year? There is a lot of evidence that Tiger is stronger. Do you consider it IMPOSSIBLE that Christophe may be correct that Tiger was unfairly crippled in this match? When Bobby Fischer complained in the '60s that Soviet grandmasters were discussing each others' ongoing games in detail (in Russian) at tournaments, he was not taken seriously. During the '80s & '90s, several Soviet & former Soviet GMs, admitted that Fischer had been correct. (If I recall correctly, Bronstein and Korchnoi were among those. And wasn't Keres the first?) Not all claims of unfairness are sour grapes. Some happen to be objectively accurate.
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.