Author: Larry Proffer
Date: 07:30:10 05/08/01
"Braingames explain their reasoning. "We made a simple decision. We wanted programs which could play on multi-processor platforms as they are obviously stronger candidates for the Kramnik match. There are really only three candidates: Fritz, Junior and Shredder. We made great efforts to persuade Shredder to play but they declined." They added that they unfortunately didn't have time for a tournament with 10 programs which would have taken too long to run. One of the main complainants was the company REBEL. Their TIGER program is a single processor prgram yet still finished second in the Cadaques event run by Prof. Irazoqui earlier in the year. They actually have a multi-processor version called DEEP TIGER but that wasn't announced until after the invitations were made." Can any statistician answer if it isn't actually better (in terms of finding the 'best' comp-comp program), to increase the number of participants while playing the same number of games? It seems to my amateur mind that: a) a participant increase actually decreases the effect of "A beats B, and B beats C while C beats A" - in other words it reduces the effect of one program being tuned (on purpose, or just happening that way) on another. b) it decreases the effect that the 'objectively best' program, bu not actually playing, can't possibly 'win' the tournament.
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.