Author: Uri Blass
Date: 06:33:20 06/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2002 at 07:14:17, Harald Faber wrote: >On June 17, 2002 at 12:45:53, Thorsten Czub wrote: > >>you don't understand because you don't know that many >>chess testers believe Nimzo8 is a very weak chess program. >> >>From the day i tested Nimzo8, it only produced marvellous results >>on my machines. i was worried. because others said they had >>weak results. > > >There is proof enough how strong/weak Nimzo 8 is. >That Nimzo 8 produces good results on YOUR machines does not prove that Nimzo 8 >is strong. Like CSTal did only well on YOUR machines. On all other machines all >other testers get different results. >Nimzo 8 is strong enough for you and me to play for, in comparison with the >other programs Nimzo 8 is definitely behind. It is dependent in the programs you compare. If you compare Nimzo with The baron or holmes then it is clearly a very srong program and these programs play in the same league of movei and they are not the weakest programs. I did not test Nimzo8 but based on all the results that I know Nimzo8 is a strong program relative to most programs. The same is truth also for chess sytem tal. chess system tal beated palm tiger convincingly in the ssdf games when chess system tal used p200. I believe that more than half of the chess programs cannot beat palm tiger on p200. I guess that the latest movei(my program) can beat palm tiger in 120/40 but needs faster hardware than p200 and I guess that the same is truth for other programs like the baron or holmes. Saying that Nimzo8 or Tal are weak in comparison with other programs is the same as saying that Gulko is a weak player with comparison with other humans. If you compare with kramnik and kasparov and anand then you are right but I do not think that this is the way to define a weak chess player. Uri
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.