Author: Slater Wold
Date: 02:17:21 05/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 29, 2004 at 04:19:23, enrico carrisco wrote: >On May 29, 2004 at 03:07:41, Slater Wold wrote: > >>On May 28, 2004 at 20:57:06, enrico carrisco wrote: >> >>>On May 28, 2004 at 18:20:55, Slater Wold wrote: >>> >>>>On May 28, 2004 at 18:04:16, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 28, 2004 at 17:50:22, Slater Wold wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Not to mention other "commercial" authors who have participated in CCT. >>>>> >>>>>Hmm, I remember Junior being in, and Amir certainly has put up the >>>>>challenge to Bob a few times (the 10x hardware thing comes to mind). >>>> >>>>Which he lost. Meaning both the 10x hardware thing & CCT6. >>>> >>>>>Enrico was also in with Hiarcs. >>>> >>>>Which came in AFTER Crafty in CCT6. >>> >>>Let's keep it in perspective, Slate. I started the thread of support for Crafty >>>and completely agree Crafty has good chances. However, what you quote above: >>>Hiarcs ranked 2nd to Crafty after a blitz playoff (no blitz playoffs in WCCC.) >>>Hiarcs ran on less than 25% of the CPU power and Hiarcs didn't drop a single >>>game to Crafty in the tournament. >> >>I wasn't being or trying to be disrespectful. But you didn't beat Crafty in the >>tournament. That's not rude, it's just a fact. >> >>>I said it before CCT6 even began and will say it now -- 5+3 blitz to settle >>>tie-breaks in a tournament is foolish, especially considering such statements as >>>above get made. >> >>Agreed. But HIARCS had its chance to beat Crafty and win. And it didn't. >>Again, just facts. > >Just pick better facts when trying to prove your basis of why Crafty has good >chances at WCCC. Winning a blitz playoff is not one of those supporting facts. >It's overall 7/9 performance in CCT6 is, however. > >-elc. I didn't pick the fact. GCP did.
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.