Author: James T. Walker
Date: 13:47:12 09/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 23, 1999 at 16:25:34, Thorsten Czub wrote: >And ? >Cstal is not designed to play blitz ! >It is designed to play 40/120 and has shown good results. >Not only me has found out, people have seen this in >paris, some guys have found out 1995 in paderborn (genius e.g.) >and also some guys have tried to say my results are ot true, >it would lose 6-0 or more against the top programs. than you >loggin in in ICC and hiarcs lost against cstal live ! >and it was not me playing. so i was unable to "cheat". > *********** Thorsten why don't you get off the soap box! I agree CSTal-2 is NOT designed to play blitz. This game was 15 minutes which is a kind of slow blitz I admit. But are you saying that CSTal is only good for 40/2 and nothing more? I have not seen a 1669 player beat Hiarcs,Junior or Nimzo99 at this time control. That's the only point of the post. It has nothing to do with the Junior games. I would have been happy to post a winning game of CSTal-2 when it was playing Hiarcs 7.32 but it did not happen. That was just bad luck. I'm simply showing it's style of play which is very vulnerable when it can't "see" very far ahead. I am not anti CSTal like you think. I am trying to balance some of the propaganda put out by you. As long as you persist in your propaganda I will attempt to present a different view. People can look at the games and judge for themselves. If CSTal-3 ever comes out and the bugs have been fixed I will be interested in the new version. If Oxford Softworks insists on ignoring their customers and refuses to fix the current bugs then I will not be interested. I recognize it's weaknesses and I can accept it for what it is. I would like it even better if the bugs were fixed though. ************ >Now somebody else plays 2-2 against junior and all >you can answer is to show a weak game of cstal ? > >You cannot stand that you are wrong, isn't this the main point ? >you cannot stand that your agressively posted opinion has become >a fake. a misunderstanding. a false claim. ******** What is fake? The games? Where is your proof? What claim? Fake opinion? How can I fake my opinion? The games speak for themselves. ******** > >and now your best point is to show a weak game of cstal ? >I could quote many games where weak players have beaten strong programs. >so what ? >Give up. you lose ground. all your behaviour shows is that >you have lost. > >present the people with more of your "faked cb-autoplayer" >data. and try to convince them. but for those who don't use this >device, your "reality" will not be real. because it is not the truth. ******* Sorry but none of the games are faked. They are as they were played without HUMAN intervention. By the way I used your "Style" in the games. Perhaps that was the problem. Should I do the games again with the original style? Jim Walker *******
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.