Author: Chris Whittington
Date: 13:48:08 11/09/97
Go up one level in this thread
On November 09, 1997 at 16:38:38, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>I have tried to explain thoses things to Mr Van den Herik before >>the beginning of the Tournament. But there was nothing to do, >>his decision was made long before. To justify accelerated pairing, >>he said that there was a real gap between the strongest programs and >>the weakest ones. After the tournament, many games prove it is not >>true (between the parenthesis, the final rankings of the programs): >>Stobor (24 ) won against Fritz 5 (16), Chess Tiger (27) made a draw >>against Dark >> Thought (6) , Chess Guru (14) won against Shredder (3), etc... >>During the tournament, I have heard Mr Marsland himself say to Bruce >>Moreland that the accelerated pairing was not necessary... >> Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum > >CSTal was in the B group of programs that are not that strong ! >We did not play bad as a program from the low-level-group. It is very difficult to put programs into groups. the french programs were mostly in the lower group. van den Herik told me he didn't know much about the French programs, so that was why. I don't really care which group van den H puts the programs, why is it a problem ? More problematical is the desire of certain programmers to ban 'weak' programs. Only if you are a top-ish program should you be able to enter, they want restrictions to 24 programs; and make sarky comments about the weakest program only allowed for political reasons usw. usw. Need one point out that Junior was a 'weak' program until recently; would Junior never allow to be entered ? Or that, often, programs are rated or rated badly by the cognoscenti for personal and/or political reasons ........... ? I would be opposed to reducing the numbers allowed to participate. Chris Whittington
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.