Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 04:54:06 07/16/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 16, 2005 at 07:29:55, Steve Glanzfeld wrote: >On July 16, 2005 at 05:33:39, Andrew Williams wrote: > >>I think that you want to "replace" SSDF, you need to at least reach the point >>where people have heard of you! SSDF is very well respected. CEGT is just >>another rating list, as far as I can see. That's not to denigrate the work that >>is being done by the CEGT team, but you shouldn't go around talking about >>"replacing" SSDF until you've earned a lot more respect in the community. All >>IMHO of course. > >I am not a member of the AEGT/CEGT team, but I think it's the better rating info >source. SSDF was great, useful, informative, even indispensable at times (10+ >years ago). It is great when long ponder matches can be played, but is it >representative for the typical user's configuration, or for analysis (= primary >use of engines!)? > >February 2005: release of Shredder 9 > July 2005: no Shredder 9 in a public SSDF list yet > >(there were more examples like this, Chessmaster..) > >You will have heard of Fruit 2.1. It currently is the 2nd strongest engine. 2.0 >was very strong already, too. Imagine SSDF would be your only info source about >engine strength. Oops. Never heard of this. > >Steve I understand what you're saying, but I think that SSDF has a good reason for being "slow but steady". In general, I have high confidence in what they put out, even if it takes a long time to get the information. I think there are lots of useful sources for information and I don't think that it makes sense to claim that one particular one is replacing SSDF. You might argue that a whole lot of lists and tournaments etc (including CEGT) supplement the SSDF's efforts and I'd agree with that. Andrew
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.