Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 05:25:07 03/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
On March 11, 1998 at 07:56:57, john c cook wrote: >hi if you say fritz 5 is so good have you play cm5500 vs fritz 5 >cm5500 beat fritz5 say 6 out 10 and i do not see cm5500 on ssdf >talking about commercial >interests i like you tell me how the number one program has a problem >whit a $30 >program i beat you work for fritz 5 First of all, it was not a matter here of me saying F5 is good or bad. The point of the discussion was the acceptance or rejection of SSDF procedures when testing Fritz 5. I don't know how many games you played between CM5500 and F5. But a match can not compare with 200+ games played against several programs. And no, I don't work for Fritz, thank you. Before saying this kind of things you should know better what you are talking about. Enrique >On March 11, 1998 at 07:26:01, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > >>On March 11, 1998 at 07:12:05, Jouni Uski wrote: >> >>>> >>>>Let's see what some can invent now to disqualify both lists. >>>> >>>>Enrique >>> >>>My only point is, that normally SSDF and SS list have mostly same games >>>so >>>they are almost same list with may be different level (and of course >>>Hiarcs is little better in SS list...) >> >>The whole mess started by disqualifying games autoplayed by Fritz 5. >>Eric's list does not include them. Instead, it includes games played >>manually by people other than SSDF and also by the SSDF. All manual. And >>the end result is the same: Fritz 5 comes on top of both lists. >> >>Aside from this, Hiarcs 6 comes under Fritz 5 on Selective Search list. >> >>This anti-SSDF and anti-Fritz 5 campaign goes against all evidence and >>is based on commercial interests. Ugly. >> >>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.