Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 12:27:05 06/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2000 at 15:08:08, Peter Skinner wrote: >>Hit the nail on the head. The entire function of the list is to track the >>strength of new engines without having to cower in the shadow of Crafty. >> > >Well as I asked on ICC why Crafty was not on the list, I got the response that >the list is for programs that are under constant developement, and to track how >each version gets stronger and stronger... and is for "Amateur" programs. > >By what definition is a "amateur" program classified? > >Is it a program that is not sold, given away free, and is by a sigle author? > >Or is it a program that is simply not as strong as Crafty, thus has to be >included? > >That makes no sense... > >Crafty by most in the computer chess world ( Commercially speaking and the SSDF >) do not consider Crafty as a "professional" program. > >I have just wondered this, as I feel it is an darn fine "amateur" program, and >should be included.. > >It seems that once again Bob is getting passed over for recongition that he >deserves. I think it is the opposite. His program is so highly revered that it is given a completely different category. It is widely known that crafty is not in the list because it is head and shoulders above the run of the mill ameteur programs. I don't think crafty should be put in the list. It's sort of an ego thing. Michael Johnson running against a high school track star will just humilate the high school kid, despite the fact that he might even be the state champion. The kid will feel humiliated, and Michael won't get much joy out of it either. Rather than getting the short end of the stick, I think it is more like, "We hope to be on your level someday, but right now, we know we are unable to compete."
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.