Author: Bertil Eklund
Date: 08:10:51 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. It wasn't time to play around and invite 200 programs. Instead you can check the results from the SSDF-list, tournaments from a lot of people and so on. Therefore it is quite easy to see that the four best (comp-comp) programs are Fritz, Junior, Shredder and Tiger(s). Of course you can suggest 100 other ways to check the strength, if you had all the money and all the time in the world. Which programs are better then the above? Give me five, so can we see how many that agrees with you. Bertil
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.