Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 10:43:15 10/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 05, 1999 at 09:00:50, James T. Walker wrote: >This match between CSTal-2 vs Nimzo99a ended with Nimzo99a winning 7-5. >Games were played with auto232. So now I have 24 games of CSTal-2 at 40/2 hrs >using the original "Chess.sty". Hiarcs 7.32 won 6.5-5.5 and Nimzo 99a won 7-2 >for a total of 13.5 to 10.5. Not bad for CSTal-2. These results are much >better than one might expect if you only play CSTal-2 at fast time controls. >The important thing to "see" is the playing style of CSTal. It is fun to play >against and will surprise you a lot with unexpected moves. Watch your King. By >the way CSTal had access to all 3/4 man tablebases and 29 of the 5 man >tablebases. you play 24 games against Hiarcs and Nimzo and you get 10.5 points for cstal out of 24. remember that MY match hiarcs vs. CStal was 5.5-4.5 for hiarcs. All people here said that i am cheating or manipulating somehow ! also i said that cstal has no problem with nimzo and hiarcs. i do not have nimzo 99a. only nimzo2000. So i don't know exactly if Nimzo99a is stronger or as strong as nimzo2000. so my results and your results correlate very good. the data fits together. Not enough that it gets good results, it also plays very interesting games. Thats more than many people avoke. they always want to suggest here that cstal plays very brilliant games from time to time, but the results would be very very sad. So - since we have seen (you are my critics so you will not be "Infuenced" by me or chris or paid or you don't cheat) that you get the same impression it seems to be obvious that i was right and the people claiming that i am manipulating or cheating or paid or whatever were wrong. cstal IS playing nice games, and it IS able to get good results. Thanks. who will be the next to proof it ? :-)
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.