Author: KarinsDad
Date: 12:02:13 09/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 28, 1999 at 13:35:10, Ratko V Tomic wrote: [snip] > >Even the most benevolent/naive interpretation of their decision could only be >ineptitude in judging the uncertainties and mindless disregard of its >side-effects. > Well, I am a rather naive person and my interpretation was that they had a limited number of machines, so they picked the top 4 autoplayer capable programs on the previous list. Is this an incorrect and naive assumption on my part? I don't think so. I realize that Hirarcs 7.32 was used instead of Hirarcs 7.0, but so? I realize that Junior was used instead of Fritz 5.0, but since Fritz 5.32 was tested on the faster hardware, so? You have to go to number 7 on the previous list to get to a non-CB program (with the exception of CM6000 which does not have autoplay). Would it be fair to 5 of the top 6 programs to go to the number 7 program just in order to NOT get a CB program tested on the faster hardware? I hardly think so. What kind of crapstorm discussion would we have here on CCC if MChess Pro (any version) or Shredder 2 or heaven forbid, #190 were picked before Fritz 5.32? Effectively, you are arguing that even though CB has 5 of the top 6 programs from the last list, they should NOT get a lions share of the representation on the faster hardware. And, you are potentially arguing that CM6000 should also get tested first on the fastest hardware, even though it does not have autoplay and is a pain in the butt to test. Huh? The only statistical anomaly here is that CB has 7 representative top ten programs whereas everyone else only has 1 at most. KarinsDad :)
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.