Like Uri suggests you are missing the point. In this context weak should not be understood absolute but relative. Naturally Junior is a very strong engine but it is rather weak if you compare it to engines like Rybka, Naum and Fritz. It's like a Porsche 911, naturally it's a very fast car but compared to Formula 1 racers it's a rather weak vehicle. In my last post I also used inverted commas ("......") around the word weak to try to avoid misunderstandings. To be sure, Junior is a strong engine. In fact I'm a big fan of this engine due to the highly original playingstyle of Junior.but the word "weak" for a multi-worldchampion shock me ...
It has a very peculiar play, and plays much better with its own book. I saw also on your CSS (I don't know if you are still active there) rating list that Junior has some high preferences for some openings. The success percentages were oscillating wildly.
I agree 100% with you Kai regarding your views on Junior. Neither Klaus Wlotzka (founder of the CSS Ratinglist) nor I are testing for the time being meaning that the ratinglist is no longer updated. However it is still possible to view some statistics based on the CSS Ratinglist like the one with openingstatistics:
http://www.computerschach.de/index.php? ... Itemid=241
Take a look at the table at the bottom at the page (results with the black pieces). Typical of Junior it makes some quite extreme performances. Playing the Queens Gambit result in a very bad score of 31,8% (far worse than for example Delfi 5.1) while Junior excels when playing the tricky King's Indian with the black pieces (a clear number one among all engines). Not even Rybka is close to Junior in this opening. This opening statistic once again confirms that Junior is a very sensitve and indeed original engine. Depending on the opening and the type of position the playing strength of Junior vary a lot, it's a very sensitive engine.
One thing is for sure, watching Junior playing is never boring!
Regards
Per