Author: Chesster Fritz
Date: 20:40:21 02/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 05, 2004 at 17:31:36, Chesster Fritz wrote: >On February 05, 2004 at 15:08:18, Thorsten Czub wrote: > >>On February 05, 2004 at 08:01:42, Chesster Fritz wrote: >>>No one trusts your Data....You Fudge the Data, ergo, your work is dishonest >>>garbage. >> >>:-)) >> >>so in other words: you don't know. > >I know what I said above is true. > >Now give the link to the post with the PGN or Shutup! I found it, and have done a preliminary analysis. The attack by CSTAL2.03 is interesting, much like a human playing a human, but there doesn't appear to be a forced win, most likely a draw. It appears S8 didn't consider Bxh6 when it played Qc7, at least it doesn't show in the PV, but may have been pruned in quiescent/null move search, as there was no apparent forced win. I'll give CSTAL2.03 a thumbs up for a thematic but somewhat speculative attack. So far I would say a small +-/= unclear position. However, in my preliminary analysis, I found moves that S8 most likely wouldn't play as I tested your game and found dubious moves in your PGN! I've S8 and it didn't add up! CSTAL2.03 I couldn't test beyond your PGN as I haven't the program. I'll give you some leeway, but it's my opinion you tampered with S8 ensuring a loss and a victory for CSTAL2.03. If you did tamper with S8 during the game, and I suspect you did, shame on you! I don't care for testers who give Fudged Data! It appears blantantly obvious, you want to discredit Shredder 8. This attitude in testing is simply wrong, and No One will trust your methods. My verdict isn't out, but leeway or not, something appears wrong with your game,i.e. certain moves were made by S8 and they don't appear in my S8 program.
This page took 0.01 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.