Author: John Smith
Date: 15:01:55 10/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 03, 2002 at 15:13:59, Chessfun wrote: >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. My time control is 15/15 and unlike certain citizens of Canada, I always know what i am talking about.
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.