Author: James Stacey
Date: 15:09:25 12/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2001 at 15:47:02, Roy Eassa wrote: >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. Please post this so called evidence along with setups and the tablebases used. > >Do you consider it IMPOSSIBLE that Christophe may be correct that Tiger was >unfairly crippled in this match? Lots of improbable things are not impossible. > >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. Do you take Fischers' current complaints about America 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?) Are you saying that the SSDF are involved in some sort of absurd communist plot to stop Gambit Tiger from winning? > >Not all claims of unfairness are sour grapes. Some happen to be objectively >accurate. There is no such thing as objectivety. Best Regards James Stacey
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.