Author: George Tsavdaris
Date: 02:50:25 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 00:26:35, Terry McCracken wrote: >On November 30, 2003 at 19:59:21, Gerald Wright wrote: > >>On November 30, 2003 at 19:56:49, Eye Witness wrote: >> >>> "If a computer were to play secretly in a tournament like Linares the special >>>preparation would be taken away and a program like Deep Fritz would finish in >>>one of the top positions." Vladimir Kramnik 2003 >>> >>> >>>I submit comps have been GM strength since Fritz 5 on a Pentium 200 machine. >>>Not always against anti-computer play but regular chess play as described above. >> >> >>They have been grandmasters even against anti computer play, if this is not true >>show me the public games where they have been beaten by anti computer play, i am >>not talking about some games where some person claimed to win without evidence. > >Check my wins at Lokasoft, against Rebel 12, before and after the Bug Fix, I can >attest they are not Grandmasters, yet. If they weren't GM's, then how do you explain the performance of: Rebel Century 4 against Van Vely,Shredder 7 in Argentina, Rebel against Anand and many others(Rebel didn't lost a match against any GM),Chess Tiger 14 in Argentina, Chess Tiger 15.0 against 4 GM's,Hiarcs 8 in Agrentina,Hiarcs 9 against Bareev,Deep Fritz 8 and Deep Junior 8 against Kasparov,Fritz 8 against Kramnik, Gambit Tiger 2.0/Shredder 6.0/Junior 7.0/Hiarcs 8.0 against Smirin(if they weren't GM's they would lose 7-1 or or more), Brutus against GM's, Chess Tiger 15.0 in Spain and many many more. > >But believe as you will, and no I didn't play with takebacks, nor did I use >anti-computer play. Besides, what's the fun in that?
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.