Author: Günther Simon
Date: 04:47:51 02/06/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 06, 2006 at 07:22:39, chandler yergin wrote: >On February 05, 2006 at 16:08:19, Günther Simon wrote: > >>On February 05, 2006 at 15:44:36, chandler yergin wrote: >> >>>What do you think you are testing? >>>Engines? >>>No! >> >>??? >> >>>You are Testing the current Theory of Chess. >>>The Openings! There is a Direct correllation. >>>Games have 3 outcomes. Win Loss Draw. >> >> >>??? >> >>>You cannot refute over 2 million games played. >>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?484643 >> >>??? >> >>What has your irrelevant as usual posting to do >>with different engines strength? >Only if you 'tweak' them do they have different relative strengths against each >other in play. Now you really uttered what I always could not believe, but suspected from your strange posts: YOU think all different engines are in reality of the same strength and it is just the users fault, if they are not(by changing options)?? Come on, that's what I call absurdity... speechless... >>What has it to do with chess games at all? >It has everything to do with it! > > Your permanently mantra >>about the _average_ chess outcome for a game is as useful >>as stating there are 32 pieces and 64 squares. > >It's NOT Average Chess Outcome! >It's Factual Data based on over 2 million games played! >CEGT & SSDF Confirm the same thing. >> >>Chandler it's darker in the night and brighter at day >>and what?. >> >>I cannot believe that you still post all that nonsense... >I can't believe you have such a hard time grasping the obvious. You are hopeless. >> >>The only worlds where your statement makes some sense are >>1) asylums >>2) worlds where all chess entities are of the same strength > >You haven't done any research have you? >Of course not, or you would not make absurd statements like this.
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.