Author: Micheal Cummings
Date: 01:37:17 09/09/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 1999 at 03:36:03, Mark Young wrote: >On September 09, 1999 at 02:30:06, Paulo Soares wrote: > >>On September 09, 1999 at 00:35:01, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>On September 08, 1999 at 20:24:58, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On September 08, 1999 at 19:38:01, Micheal Cummings wrote: >>>>[snip] >>>>>You are right. If a GM has a heart attack and is taken to hospital the match >>>>>would be a loss to him. Or a draw depending on how kind the other player is. >>>>> >>>>>Rebel just had a heart attack. If it is not up to playing with the big boys then >>>>>the offer should not have been made. >>>>> >>>>>I my opinion you either win, lose or draw. And stuff any outside happenings. >>>>> >>>>>It was a loss to Rebel for whatever reason. Which makes me sad cause I like the >>>>>program and want it to do well. >>>> >>>>I think what Ed is doing is sure to strengthen his program in a mighty way in >>>>the long run. Besides which, he is providing real data to the threadbare >>>>question "How strong are computers compared to humans at tournament time >>>>controls?" >>> >>>This is not what Ed is doing. He is answering the question "How strong is Rebel >>>compared to GM humans at tourament time controls." We don't even know how strong >>>this version of Rebel is compared to other programs. This is a huge leap of >>>logic to make such a statment. >>> >>>> >>>>In any event, those (Rebel/GM) matches are more interesting to me than the >>>>recent knockout WC at Las Vegas. I am glad that at least one program vendor had >>>>the moxie to give it a go. >> >>As Rebel is one of the top programs, and there is not great difference among >>the best programs, I think we can generalize. > >7 Rebel 9.0 47MB P200 MMX 2525 24 -24 883 62% 2442 > >This is the rating for Rebel 9.0, this is under 50 rating points lower then >Fritz 5.32 and maybe 70 points lower then Hiarcs 7.32. How do we even know the >version of Rebel Ed is running is stronger then this. I do not and can not >generalize when I have no facts to even generalize about. Can you say for a fact >that the version Ed is running now is stronger then Rebel 9. NO! > >Its very dangerous to start assuming things when we don't have any facts to back >it up. > >I have seen nothing in this version of rebel yet to make me think it is stronger >then version 9. And from what I have seen so far it looks to be weaker then the >version that played GM Anand, but this is only subjective. Why would Ed play a weaker engine. I would suggest he would be playing his best engine he has now. I am sure he would have run tests and would have been sure that it is better than Rebel 10, let alone Rebel 9. I think maybe the combination of hardware and software is stuffing him up somewhere. I think with all this stuff concerning putting off Rebel-CP release. I think the testing and quailty control may have been slack in a few areas. He has alot of his plate at the moment. And only he could confirm or deny this.\ With Hiarcs, and Fritz, and CM7000 soon to come on the market. A new version of Rebel has been missing for quite a while now, compared to the release of the other programs latest versions. Even my local chess shop that sells all these programs have been selling only about 1 copy every two months of Rebel 10, compared to Fritz, Shredder and Hiarcs which are selling steadily, with CM6000 at 1/3 the price of the others out selling them all. Especially since it topped the SSDF list. Rebel 10 was a great program, and Ed has good customer service 99.9% of the time (I will forget the price drop incident.) He needs some mre market share at the moment. Lets face it, when was the last time anyone posted a Rebel 10 game for anything on here. Not even for analysis. Not icluding these Gm matches either.
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.