Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 02:14:59 09/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 18, 1999 at 21:27:34, James T. Walker wrote: >************ >Thanks for your comments Ed. You are one of my Hero's and I respect your >opinion. It just seems to me that there are plenty of people with enough >knowledge about programs/programming in general that if this were being done it >could be proven. Especially if it is being done to the point where results like >Thorsten is getting can be turned into the results I am getting. So far, I have >played 8 games of CSTal-2 vs Crafty (2-6) and 5 games of Cstal-2 vs Hiarcs 7.32 >(0-5) all at 40/2. So my 2-11 score would require quite a lot of cheating if it it is nearly impossible that cstal using same machines than your other opponent loses 40/120 games 0-5. there must be something wrong. I cannot produce a match 0-5 against CStal manually even if i would like to create it in 40/120. If this happens something is wrong with your machines or with the autoplayer you are using. If cstal can handle hiarcs, it can also handle nimzo and other programs (rebel ?:-)). I can easily prove this. Even for witnesses. Thats no problem. It is more a problem to create a 0-5 against tal if you play 40/120 on fast machines. Sorry. i don't believe in your results. >really should be like 10-3 favor CSTal-2. Yes I know the sample is still small >and very few people here are interested anyway. I'm finished with this >discussion now since it is a waste of time. >Regards, >Jim Walker >************* I am finished with your kind of SHALLOW way to discuss facts. If you want to be precise, you will have to learn how to behave professional. The way YOU prepare and prove, no programmer will ever make any progress...
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.