Author: Larry Proffer
Date: 08:29:30 05/03/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 03, 2001 at 10:45:45, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On May 03, 2001 at 06:37:52, Larry Proffer wrote: > >>>The so called impartial experts should recommend the "best" programs not all >>>programs in the world that in theory can be better. In April I believed that it >>>was Fritz, Junior, Shredder and Tiger(s) (alphabtical order). I don't believe it >>>is a coincidence that the best programs ARE commercial. >> >>But this was not a pre-condition as suggested elsewhere by others .... > >That one was killed a long time ago IIRC, by various reports from the involved >parties. The only requirements stated then and since was the SMP capability and >naturally significant (superior) strength of the engines involved. Of course you >can choose to invent interests of the sponsors and the obviousness of the >superior strength of commercial programs. Some have tried that without much >success IMO. > >The real problem is the experts opinion of the strength and availability issue. >Forming an opinion on the strongest programs without even a rudimentary >investigation is nonsensical by default. AFAIK you do not develop psychic >abilities after being involved with computer chess for 25 years. The organizers >would have a real explanatory problem if they included the SMP Tiger. > If they included the SMP Tiger they'ld have the same problem as they have now, except the program(s) argued about would be SMP Ferret and SMP Crafty and maybe some others. Bertil said Ferret was a possibility but was a no-no because its programmer hadn't done much work on it recently. Deep Blue, however would have been all systems go, despite having been taken to bits three years ago. He didn't give a comment on SMP Crafty which is worked on all the time, and has a comparable ICC rating to Ferret. Tiger is just a program to hang the discussion on, actually it should be all of them or nothing. In the case of Tiger, Bertil said "so called independant experts ..... choose ... Shredder, Junior, Fritz, Tiger ...", so you can assume he was in favour of including Tiger. Ed quotes Ray Keene as having no objection to Tiger either. So that appears to leave Enrique arguing against, and winning the argument. One assumes Enrique would have similarly argued against other programs - it is not known that he has a specific anti-Tiger bent. I doubt Enrique is anti any program, why should he be? That leaves Enrique not specifically arguing against Tiger but against *all* other programs. And in favour of the ones that played. Does it not? What must have happened is that Enrique was concerned about statistical significance and wanted many many games between two programs to find a true winner. If three or more programs play then the number of games in total for a round robin tournament rises geometrically. Enrique must have thought he didn't have enough time for all those games, so he went for the two-program option. >Regards, >Mogens
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.