Author: pete
Date: 14:56:17 08/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 19, 2000 at 16:08:31, Peter Skinner wrote: >>SSDF uses auto232. I am afraid that auto232 under winboard (by Remi) is still >>not very well known. >>IMO, crafty will profit in the chessbase environment from the high quality book. >> >>Uli >> >>> >>>pavel > >The results are not what bothers me. What bothers me, is they are using a >version that had some serious bugs, and 17.08 came out very quickly after 17.07 >to correct this... > >If they want to use a version close to 17.07, then use 17.08. Atleast there will >be more realistic results. > >Crafty is definately higher rated than the current SSDF list states. And I doubt >many will argue with that fact. Ok , here is another one of them :-) I never have seen any data suggesting it should be even higher rated than it is now and I _do_ follow its results. That crafty on a Quad-Xeon will be even stronger , sure , but other would probably be better too on an Athlon 1000 which they don't get either . Crafty competes very successful at SSDF currently IMHO and I doubt many will argue that it won't hurt Crafty getting the Fritz 6 opening book and the Chessbase book learner ;-) If SSDF changed versions every month or so there _never_ would be any reliable results and they chose the one distributed by Chessbase át some time . This sounds reasonable ; and in fact it seems it isn't very broken at all . SOS also wins matches against Crafty17.11 or 17.12 from time to time if you look at other tournaments . I am sure Crafty17.13 will probably soon be tested by SSDF after WMCC but whatever one can say about SSDF , noone can expect them to switch versions every other week and play some 150 tournament games with all of them . pete > >As for Crafty not using the Winboard environment, that is actually a good thing. >Under ChessBase GUI, it is getting a well designed book to use. Crafty's book is >good, but most times very speculative. The Crafty 16.xx series book, was by far >better than the 17.xx series. > >Then again Uli, would you want the SSDF testing a version of Comet that had >serious bugs in it? I don't think you would, so why should another author have >to take the same sort of results?
This page took 0.01 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.