Author: Shep
Date: 07:07:55 06/11/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 10, 1999 at 10:21:38, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: >Your analogy between CM6000 and Zarkov is really not fair >at all. CM6000 is rated just 1 point below Fritz. Where is >Zarkov rated?? Furthermore, I have seen a tournament where >MCP8 was 6.5 - 3.5 over Hiarcs 7. Now, suppose one program >such as MCP8 does better than CM6000 in your qualifier - so what? The fact that >CM6000 was rated number 1 by the SSDF, >and is now number 2 by a mere single point, would dictate >that it belongs in any tournament until proven unworthy of >competing against other top programs. You do have one point, and I must admit with a little blush that I didn't exactly know my own results: CM 6000's results at 40/120 so far are +1 =7 -2 (including the two draws so far against MCHess 8). Not extremely impressing, but far from "below average" (MChess 7/8, Rebel 9 and others are much worse) as I stated before. When I said "below average", I was only having in mind the one match where it lost 0,5:2,5 against Rebel 10a (and played like it was not in the same class). >There is much controversy regarding CM6000. You can do us all a great service by >including it in your tournament so that we will know if it truly is unworthy of >inclusion in your future tournaments. I can understand why many people would like to see CM 6000 in. However, I don't know if my tournament will do much in this controversy. After all, it's "only" 11 games per program (though this is more than in official world championships). Just about any results (except 11/11 and 0/11) could be labeled "statistically insignificant" by any side whose arguments for/against CM 6000 are supported/refuted by them. >I admire the way you run your tournament on identical computers. It is for that >reason I look at your results with a great amount of interest. I believe that >running program against program on identical hardware presents the most feasible >way to conduct a tournament. You are to be congratulated for your effort - I Of course. Still I personally love things like WCCC, just to see how the PC-based stuff measures up against the "big guys". >think it's great! I also believe that tournaments at a time control of 40/2 is >the absolute most meaningful in terms of evaluating a programs strength - just Indeed. Still it's fun to play some tourneys at shorter TC's every once in a while. :) But they will become less and less... --- Shep
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.