Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 02:12:12 01/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 16, 2001 at 01:57:59, Hans Christian Lykke wrote: >On January 16, 2001 at 00:32:42, Harald Faber wrote: > >>You can say whatever you want, but this result (and the other auto232 Rebel >>Century results) is absolutely nonsense and out of value. > > >You can say whatever you want, but this result (and the other auto232 Rebel >>Century results) is absolutely necessery and of great value to make the SSDF-list! No great value at all. It will only hurt the creditability of your list. In previous years I already informed SSDF that running Rebel using the autoplayer makes no sense because the autoplayer software hurts the real playing strength of the program and I adviced the SSDF to test Century 1 manually. As a result Century 1 was not included on the SSDF list. I understand the pain of playing manual games and I respected your decision. With Century 3 the question came again. I told SSDF the same story, pointed the the manual that explains about the loss in playing strength and left the choice up to SSDF. It would have been best to follow the same procedure as last year with Century 1, that is, test Century 3 manually or don't play the thing at all. As long as you don't take a producer information serious you can't count on peoples sympathy. If you had taken the time and study Century 3 manual performance versus its autoplayer performance it is not so difficult to figure that Century 3 rating and place on your list highly doubtful. Just do your list a favor and take the trouble to play 100 manual games and you will be surprised. Ed
This page took 0.01 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.