Author: James T. Walker
Date: 12:42:28 09/15/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 15, 1999 at 12:28:42, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On September 14, 1999 at 23:23:24, Lawrence S. Tamarkin wrote: > >>Is it an uninteresting program after-all? > >it is an interesting program. > >> Can it not compete with any of the >>other higher rated programs in existence? > >it can compete against the strongest programs (and lose against the weakest)... >:-))) > >See also my posted match Hiarcs7.32 vs. CSTal2.03. >If you don't play via autoplayer cable but using mouse, you will >get these results. >If you use the cb-autoplayer your results will degenerate the more >games you play with a very very tough change e.g. >first 10 games 50% and further games 0 %. >But what do you want to test, the programs or the capability of >the autoplayer to cheat ? *************** If you have only played 5 games manually how can you be sure that the results will not follow the results of auto232 games?? Unless of course you have a hand in the outcome which is very easy with manual operation and not so easy with auto232. Why do you continue to say the CB auto232 is cheating. I have seen no proof of this statement from you or anyone else. Where is your proof. When you make stupid stamements like this without proof your credibility is diminished. Why are the first 10 games 50% and then change?? Do they have to be continiously played or if you play only one game/day and then shut off the computer will the CB auto232 still figure out a way to cheat after 10 games?? You continue to make nonsense statements about CSTal's strength and CB auto232 cheating but you can not prove either one. I have zero confidence in anything you post here because you are on a mission to prove CSTal is as strong as other commercial programs yet it cannot beat Crafty in a match which did not use CB auto232. Your post should be deleted because of your unfounded attacks on Chessbase. That's one man's opinion. Jim Walker *************** > > >> And my most serious question - Is its >>claims to having a totally orriginal, Unique & human style bogus, or is it that >>which makes it weaker than many other programs? > >?? it plays unique i guess. most programs play unique. > >To get an impression look into the games against hiarcs. >Hiarcs is not that weak, isn't it ... :-) > >>Larry
This page took 0.02 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.