Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 13:52:38 04/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 2001 at 15:32:05, Albert Silver wrote: >Yes, the problem here is the presumption that Cadaques is the final word. No >disrespect meant to the event (as fascinating as I think it is), but it is still >a tournament of hand-picked programs. You know from the outset, that the winner >will be one of those chosen, so a program such as SOS, whether you _believe_ it >is weaker or not, can never be the winner. On the other hand it could (in >theory) have been World Champion. As I recall, it was also one of the stumbling >blocks of Fritz in the WC. Ferret, which came second, and whose strength is >undisputed, could also never have been a winner of Cadaques. Etc. So much as >Cadaques is great, it can hardly be said to represent the computer chess >community as a whole. I'm not saying that is what Enrique claimed it was, but >the implication in MIG's piece was there. That was my reading on the article as well. Exept from the obvious lack of various engines, there's the whole problem with using commercial versions and autoplay instead of tournament conditions. In this context twenty games means absolutely nothing as basis for the decision. Not to mention the fact that only Deep Fritz participated of the suggested programs. Despite that, the article is more thorough and informed than the previous ones I've read. I've tried sending feedback on the article to see what happens, but I doubt that the response will be thorough. Regards, Mogens
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.