Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 07:55:16 05/03/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 03, 2001 at 10:45:45, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On May 03, 2001 at 06:37:52, Larry Proffer wrote: > >>>The so called impartial experts should recommend the "best" programs not all >>>programs in the world that in theory can be better. In April I believed that it >>>was Fritz, Junior, Shredder and Tiger(s) (alphabtical order). I don't believe it >>>is a coincidence that the best programs ARE commercial. >> >>But this was not a pre-condition as suggested elsewhere by others .... > >That one was killed a long time ago IIRC, by various reports from the involved >parties. The only requirements stated then and since was the SMP capability and >naturally significant (superior) strength of the engines involved. Of course you >can choose to invent interests of the sponsors and the obviousness of the >superior strength of commercial programs. Some have tried that without much >success IMO. > >The real problem is the experts opinion of the strength and availability issue. >Forming an opinion on the strongest programs without even a rudimentary >investigation is nonsensical by default. AFAIK you do not develop psychic >abilities after being involved with computer chess for 25 years. >The organizers >would have a real explanatory problem if they included the SMP Tiger. Not really, remember Keene said yes to SMP Tiger. Ed >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.