Author: Paul Doire
Date: 06:10:23 02/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 09, 2004 at 15:01:37, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On February 09, 2004 at 12:24:21, Paul Doire wrote: > >>On February 09, 2004 at 05:04:04, Thorsten Czub wrote: >> >>>this seems to indicate that shredder8 is NOT that superior as it was >>>announced/claimed here. >> >>So these 20 games lead you to this conclusion? >>After the hundreds that have been posted here? >>Sometimes we believe what we want even in the face >>of evidence to the contrary. >> >>Paul > >your games were on slow hardware. >chessfuns games were not with increment. >my results and my data, and the results of this guy are IMO different. > >i see no evidence.i see games that are worthless for me because they were played >on old hardware or 3 minutes blitz. > >i see more serious data elsewhere,and i see that it fits exactly with my >observations. So you simply discount the results you have seen? Chessfuns, Kurts, and many other posts...others have run much more serious tournaments than I, and the evidence is overwhelming, unless we have made a foolish claim and stick to it tenaciously regardless of what we see. But then that says more about us than the engines tested.
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.