Author: Mark Young
Date: 09:05:07 10/18/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 1998 at 08:28:12, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >On October 18, 1998 at 04:40:54, Harald Faber wrote: > >>On October 17, 1998 at 23:09:16, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>I like computer test. I just wish we could stop testing the top of the line >>>programs Vs CST. Unless the point of this is to gauge which program is best by >>>how badly the beat CST. >>>>Enrique >> >>Maybe it is to demonstrate that Thorsten is wrong. He ALWAYS claims that CST is >>AS STRONG as the top commercial programs. So nothing to say against games >>between CST and the top. > >It's not so much showing that Thorsten is wrong as being irritated by so many >ringing bells every time CST wins a game and so much silence when it loses, >presenting it as if it were an eater of giants. I still remember the first >results posted here, where CST supposedly defeated Nimzo 98 2-0 and Fritz 5 also >by 2-0. Then I did the same as now with these results: > >CST-Nimzo98 3.5-15.5 (+2 -14 =3) >CST-Fritz 5 1.5-8.5 (+0 -7 =3) >CST-Junior 5 1.5-7.5 (+0 -6 =3) > >CST scored a total of 17.1%, or -263 Elo, all games at 40/40. > >Interesting as CST may be, it is far from being capable of competing on equal >basis with some much stronger programs. One thing is to see CST as a fun program >and an interesting project, and a very different one to present it as the >achievement it is not. > I know, I just don't find CST at all interesting, as project or anyting else. I can setup CM6000 to play close to the same style as CST, and it will play as unsound a moves as CST. I just don't call it a project or interesting or fun. >Enrique
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.