Author: Tony Hedlund
Date: 00:50:13 05/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 03, 2001 at 06:18:40, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On May 03, 2001 at 05:05:03, Larry Proffer wrote: > >>That's what I thought too. Bertil had said it was him and not SSDF. But then, >>Enrique Irazoqui made a post (fuller section below) containing the text: >> >>"GM Raymond Keene and Byron Jacobs of BGN, as well as Thoralf Karlsson >>and Bertil Eklund of the SSDF, were on the CC line of the above exchanges." >> >>That is the President of the SSDF involved as well as Bertil, one would assume. Then you also assume that they took part in the debate? The reason for Enrique to have them in the CC line can be that he wanted a third part witness the discussions. >>Where does the SSDF end, and Thoralf and Bertil begin? >> >>There's a line of demarkation clearly drawn someplace? We have emailgroup debates every week, and Bertil is a personal friend of mine (we live in the same town). But the first time I saw anything about this subject was here in CCC. >Good questions. > >This paragraph from Enrique's letter mentions international computer rating >lists. > >"After careful consideration and consultation with the sponsors and organizers, >it was decided that the two top programs on the International computer rating >lists, as well as the winner of the ICCA computer chess world championship >1999, should be invited." > >I can't think of regularly updated rating lists other than the one constructed >by SSDF. The relevance to this particular event is not exactly transparent, >because the only SMP program listed is Deep Fritz. You can't mean that refering to our list make us involved? Then we are involved in many things ;-) Tony >The other option would be rating based on results against human opposition. That >would justify Junior and Fritz with their results in toplevel tournaments. Also >PConners has a good tournament result, a win and a GM norm. There are also >results from the Israeli league, but I don't know the specific details. The flaw >with this selection process is, that it doesn't prove the superiority of these >programs against humans. Other programs have proved their capabilities in >smaller matches on inferior hardware and they would probably do equally well or >better if adapted to the current hardware level. I think it's a safe bet that >some of top programs currently without SMP capability have made experiments >headed in that general direction. > >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.