Author: Chessfun
Date: 12:13:59 10/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 03, 2002 at 04:27:27, John Smith wrote: >I don't mean to start a troll, and I do realize that you need hundreds of games >to make any significant mathematical statement as to the relative strength of >any particular program. That being said, I have to agree with some posts that >state that tiger 15 is weak. As always a poor choice of words. >In my particular case, yahoo advance lounge, after approximately 100 games, I >find that ct15 normal to be more passive than either tiger 14 and certainly >gambit 2. My record is worse with respect to identical opponents then with >tiger 14 or gambit2. 100 games? at what blitz? what were the time controls, what were the opponents, what CPU's were on the other machines...etc...etc. Mine were 40/40 autoplayed on two identical 1200 mhz machines. So post the games, lets at least see what you think you are talking about. Sarah.
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.