Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 10:42:55 12/09/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 1999 at 12:47:56, eric guttenberg wrote: >Okay, so now we have on the one hand a post saying that Rebel-Tiger has >16-4 against Shredder and on the other hand a post saying that in his tests >Shredder has a plus score against Rebel-Tiger. You have to differenciate what the people say exactly. if you are not precise, you are shallow. what is the sense of beeing shallow ? I have played my games on machines the authors of shredder and tiger know. both programmers have been informed. it was 40/120 games played via autoplayer. other people have blitz-games. you don't really want to relate blitz results with tournament results, or ? >We also have a post giving Hiarcs a plus score against R-T, but the latest >SSDF results show R-T leading H7.32 by 26-16. hiarcs has no chance against rebel-tiger. sorry. i have to say that tiger kills hiarcs, shredder and also fritz6 with a very big distance. Of course you can imagine how this influences tigers elo-rating :-)) >It may be that any definite conclusions about Rebel-Tiger vs. the Rest >of the World should wait until many more games are played, like always. thats your kind of statement. if you do not differenciate , you should not comment at all. your sentence is a non-statement alike: "the soccer-ball is round". these kind of statements may be right, but they do not say anything despite facts that are known before like : "the sun is a hot planet" or "in the winter it is mostly colder than into summer". I don't like these non-statements. they have a truth in it, but the quality of the truth is not very high (goes near sero), although the quantity of it goes near 1. >eric
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.