Author: Will Singleton
Date: 12:39:39 06/25/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 25, 1999 at 15:20:30, greg moller wrote: >On June 25, 1999 at 13:50:16, Will Singleton wrote: > >> >>On June 25, 1999 at 13:09:04, Lawrence S. Tamarkin wrote: >> >>>I thought a fictitious Harvard Cup would involve picking which humans & >>>computer's would be in it, basing it on the setup that was traditionally used in >>>past Harvard cup events. >>> >>>My picks would be, >>> >>>Human's: Playing programs: >>> >>>1. Benjamin 1.Shredder (of course) >>> >>>2. Rohde 2.Fritz5 >>> >>>3. Christiansen 3.Hiarcs7.32 >>> >>>4. Yermolinsky 4.Nimzo99 (or 2000) >>> >>>5. Fedorowicz 5.CM6000 (of of course) >>> >>>6. Gulko 6.CS Tal II for Windows (A real wild card) >>> >>> >>>mrslug - the chess software addict! >>> >>> >>> >> >>Re your choice of CSTal, my results indicate it's about as strong as my program, >>perhaps a bit stronger. This is from ICC blitz play. What indication do you >>have that it belongs anywhere near the top programs? >> >>Will > >In Thorsten's _slow_ tournaments Cstal has shown relative strength comparable to >all the top programs. Of course, due to its provocative style there's no reason >to think it won't do even better against humans. > >ICC blitz play is a poor indicator OTOH, IMO. :) > >regards, >gm Probably. But then, how do you explain the fact that of the 4 CStal accounts on ICC (that I know about), none of them has a high standard score? All of their scores are less than their blitz scores, way less than top rated computers, and either about the same as mine or less? (talmoves, master-tal, redbear, cstalx) Would also be nice to see the results of some independent testing, perhaps Shep is doing so? Will
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.