Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 20:28:18 09/01/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 01, 1999 at 19:01:32, Mark Young wrote: >On September 01, 1999 at 18:26:48, Heiko Mikala wrote: > [snip] >>game/60', 2 * Cyrix/IBM 6x86MX PR-300 >> >> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>1 Hiarcs 7.32 ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 0 1 ½ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13.0/17 >>2 CSTal II ½ 1 ½ 0 ½ 0 1 0 ½ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.0/17 > >This is the same kind of results I have seen posted many times by many >different members with other top programs playing CST. > >I just don't know how TC get all those good results when he tests CST against >the top programs. Bias. It's easy to present any result you want when you selectively choose the games you publish. SSDF doesn't release information on how well CST2 plays, but CST2 has been tested. When I inquired about how it did a while ago, a tester (who shall remain nameless) told me in no uncertain terms that it didn't do very well. [snip] >>And - as always - the same old comment: 17 games are by far not enough to say >>which program is stronger. You need at least 60-80 games for that! With a score this lopsided, 17 games won't be "far not enough". Dave
This page took 0.01 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.