Author: Ernst A. Heinz
Date: 12:05:50 11/13/97
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 1997 at 07:13:03, Chris Whittington wrote: > >I think the whole lot of you are avoiding the crucial issue from the >games at WMCCC. > >The fast searchers, even with 767 alphas, were expected to sweep the >board. Manifestly they didn't. Chris, This time your unfounded claims are easily rejected by *facts* that can be checked by everyone who wishes to do so. Junior and VirtualChess swept the competition and both did more than 100K nps on their PII-300mHz. Do you mean to say that both are *not* fast searchers? Some more facts: Was there any really slow searcher beside "Chess System Tal" in Paris? Only "Diep" and "MChess" come to my mind which both ran at about 30K nps, i.e., only semi-slow/semi-fast according to your self-brewed definition. "Chess System Tal" finished 10th, "Diep" 15th, and "Mchess" 4th. How does this compare to the fast searchers that rank 1st - 3rd, 5th - 9th, 11th -14th, and so on? These are the facts from which you conclude that something like a "knowledge revolution" happened in Paris ... >Some other fast searchers, running on PC's also under-performed >according to expectations. Well, in a field of 30 or so fast searchers some will naturally underperform due to basic probability theory ... > >Several programs (ranging from very slow, to quite fast, but none of >them brute monsters) were not even spoken about before the WMCCC as >being of any interest, performed way above expectations. > >One program (self-promotion prize Kim-il-Sung already awarded) running >at 4000 nps did really rather well. > If you consider your 10th rank with 6.0 points out of 11 games as doing "rather well" then you have to admit that 8 fast searchers and one semi-fast searcher ranked above Chess-System-Tal did better than "rather well" ... =Ernst=
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.