Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:34:28 10/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 1999 at 03:45:10, Jeroen Noomen wrote: > >>All I would say is this: If that had been _my_ program, I would have been >>perfectly happy with that result at 40/2. Because I _know_ what humans are >>capable of, when it comes to exploiting weaknesses. The performance rating >>was around 2400, which is not bad. Especially when you consider that the >>"error" is at least +/- 100 with only those 4 games being considered. > > >Hello Bob, > >I totally agree with you. Counting the two matches vs. Lithuania the result >is 4-4. Against 1 GM and 7 IM. Absolutely a good result. Besides, the team >of Lithuania was very eager to take revenge and we saw some excellent games >from their players in the second match. > >I don't see how anyone can call a result of 4-4 against 2400+ players a bad >result, under normal time controls. > >Best regards, Jeroen Easy: if you think a computer is 2600+, then this was bad. If you think a computer is 2400, this was good. You can figure out who thinks what pretty easily. :)
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.