Author: Chessfun
Date: 04:50:07 10/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 03, 2002 at 23:04:04, John Smith wrote: >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 Nice one Chief. 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.