Author: John Smith
Date: 20:04:04 10/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 03, 2002 at 18:20:46, Chessfun wrote: >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. chessfuns_devoted_slave
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.