Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 07:36:24 01/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2000 at 10:27:44, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On January 26, 2000 at 07:17:05, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > >>1. We create a Swiss tournament of 11 rounds and name it World Championship. >>2. Program X wins the tournament and becomes World Champion. >>3. We are to believe that program X is the best because it is the World Champion >>and the rest is details. > >>If this 11 round tournament would have given another name, for instance ICCA >>championship, steps 2 and 3 wouldn't cross anybody's mind. > >you forget that markus, stefan and me have played lots lots of tournament >games with shredder against all kind of programs. we knew that shredder >kills them, from our results. This is all very good, but besides the point. I am not questioning Shredder 4, Junior 4.6 or Fritz 3, all World Champions, but the way to grant such a title. >so for us it was no big thing that shredder won. >you can say: we knew that it would win. >it was clear: shredder or tiger. >since tiger is not good in swiss tournaments (plays more passive >in the latest versions) >the way was clear for shredder. > >by telling us your usual ideas about statistics and >quantity stuff, you hide the real facts: >that shredder and tiger were the best programs >in that days, and that therefore it was no big surprise >that shredder won. > >shredder killed all other commercial programs. only tiger >got 50%. > >markus knew it. stefan knew it. christophe knew it. maybe a few others too. >i said it in gambit soft forum. and when somebody asked me in paderborn, >he could get the same information. > >you should not try to make your own legends based on whatever >data. > > >>With this I don't intend to attack Shredder 4, Junior 4.6 or Fritz 3, all fine >>programs and none of them the best, but to question the meaning of a name. >>No human would become world champion after playing a total of 11 games in his >>life, and I don't think programs should either. > >i completely have to critisize your statements. >they do in no way speak out the truth. > >you completely retell us the "historical" facts in rearranged >order. >i wonder why ! Why indeed... >is there any reason to change the point of view about the strength of >shredder/tiger ?? Shhhhhh... (CIA classified information...) Enrique
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.