Author: Chessfun
Date: 15:20:46 10/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 03, 2002 at 18:01:55, John Smith wrote: >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. Yeah I agree JC does tend to put his foot in his mouth. BTW What is the handle you use at Yahoo?. 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.