Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 14:57:01 05/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 21, 2001 at 17:43:08, william penn wrote: >On May 21, 2001 at 17:33:01, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On May 21, 2001 at 17:16:31, william penn wrote: >> >>>On May 21, 2001 at 16:12:11, Rajen Gupta wrote: >>> >>>>cm 8000 is getting clobbered day in and day out! as i remeber (remind me if i'm >>>>wrong) cm 6000 more than held its own against fritz5.32 junior 5 and nimzo 7.32. >>>>and was in fact rated a point or 2 higher than either if them. >>>> >>>>this one is behaving more like a vintage cm 3000 (performance wise) >>>> >>>>a real sheep in wolf's clothing i must say >>>> >>>>rajen >>> >>> All those people who were looking for evidence for my statement that 6555 is >>>stronger than 8000, they seem to have suddenly vanished. lol >> >>Wouldn't it be funny, if the binary were -- for all intents and purposes -- >>identical? >> >>Supposing there *is* a 50 ELO difference between the two programs... >>It is almost impossible to prove it. >> >>Every swing in fortune in a SSDF set brings oohs and aahs of either doom and >>destruction or meteoric rise if it should be shifted to one opponent or the >>other. >> >>I suspect it would be good to wait until the whole set is in. > > > i don't know mr. corbitt, it seems that a little common sense along with basic >observation and experience using cm8000 as oppose to cm60000 shows the former to >be much weaker. Common sense and observation are horrible tools to measure this with. I flip a coin 5 times and it comes up heads every time. Does that mean the coin is biased? >i don't think that i have seen a good cm8000 result since it has >been released. i have played many games against 6000 and have yet to win a >single game, i have already beaten 8000 twice and drew it once. A conclusion based upon 3 measurements seems flawed to me. > i am not out to >defame the program author at all, i have always been a fan of cm . if i state >what i believe to be the truth, based on observation and experience, if this is >seen as a smear on someone's program , then so be it. I don't see it as a smear at all. You may be correct in your assertions. What I am saying is that a few experiments cannot establish what you are seeking to prove. It will take a very large body of evidence.
This page took 0.01 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.