Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:04:38 11/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 16, 2002 at 13:33:01, Tony Werten wrote: >On November 16, 2002 at 12:46:00, Lex Loep wrote: > >>On November 16, 2002 at 05:58:07, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >> >>>On November 16, 2002 at 02:41:51, Lex Loep wrote: >>> >>>>On November 16, 2002 at 00:13:10, Peter Skinner wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 15, 2002 at 19:13:51, Volker Richey wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>more informations at >>>>>> >>>>>>http://www.vrichey.de/cct5 >>>>>> >>>>>>Volker >>>>> >>>>>No authorized operator? >>>>> >>>>>The interface kibitzes.. >>>> >>>>Looking at the list of participants I see there is no competition >>>>for tiger. So what's the point in participating ? >>> >>>Well, have a look at Leiden 2002; ct had lost against points against the >>>winboarders and had to rank below 2 of these. >> >>What do you mean ? This is what I remember >>http://lokasoft.nl/uk/chess_tiger_15_in_dutch_open.htm >> >>Lex > >Maybe you can also remember the game you saw ? Tiger was very lucky against >XiniX. It was at most a draw for Tiger, maybe not even that. Tiger was very >lucky against Baron as well. > >Just looking at the endtable and saying "Tiger had no competition since it won" >is not very realistic. > >Tony Can you define being lucky? For me being lucky in case of no bugs is not a case when the opponent missed a win because knowing to win won games is part of chess. I think that you can say that a program is lucky if the opponent outsearched it when both sides do not understand the final position when later both programs are surprised to find that the result is not what they evaluated. It happened to an old piece square table version of movei with no hash tables in a game against Nejmet. Nejmet outsearched it and won a pawn only to find that the knight is trapped so Nejmet lost the game. Uri
This page took 2.33 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.