02 Sep 05
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=7091&page=2
Read Phlabibits post. He makes an interesting statement in it.
BTW, this whole thing bothers me. It makes me not want to play here anymore because if you play good, anyone can cry 'cheat!'.
Dont make me sorry I subscribed, please.
02 Sep 05
Originally posted by Checkmate187i always knew this site isnt worth of spending big money...
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=7091&page=2
Read Phlabibits post. He makes an interesting statement in it.
BTW, this whole thing bothers me. It makes me not want to play here anymore because if you play good, anyone can cry 'cheat!'.
Dont make me sorry I subscribed, please.
02 Sep 05
Originally posted by Checkmate187It's also been stated in various threads scattered about that new tec has been applied to the problem that has not until recently been availible . Yes things have changed and continue to do so .
The quote by Phlabibit....
"It is the farthest thing from my mind, my friend.... and you should know I could never accuse ANYONE of using an engine since it is impossible to prove... "
How times have changed.
02 Sep 05
They said Ironman matched up 92% (or some high number, dont remember exactly) to a program.
My question is... what is the acceptable number? 70%? 60%?
A good move is a good move... a human can find a good move as well as a program.
Is someone at 59% ok, and someone at 60% not?
Get out the sleds, because this is one helluva slippery slope we are on now.
02 Sep 05
Originally posted by Checkmate187I'm wearing cleats , no problem here .
They said Ironman matched up 92% (or some high number, dont remember exactly) to a program.
My question is... what is the acceptable number? 70%? 60%?
A good move is a good move... a human can find a good move as well as a program.
Is someone at 59% ok, and someone at 60% not?
Get out the sleds, because this is one helluva slippery slope we are on now.