Author: stuart taylor
Date: 10:27:09 05/22/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 22, 2001 at 01:04:37, Jason Williamson wrote: >On May 21, 2001 at 21:36:26, stuart taylor wrote: > >>On May 21, 2001 at 20:57:12, Jason Williamson wrote: >> >>>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. 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. 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. >>> >>> >>>02-04-01 Commerical Closed 2001 >>> >>> 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>>1 Chessmaster 8000 xxxx * 0 1 1 1 1 4.0/5 >>>2 Junior 6.0 2851 -248 1 * 0 0 1 1 3.0/5 6.50 >>>3 Deep Fritz 2776 -158 0 1 * ½ ½ 1 3.0/5 6.00 >>>4 Shredder 4 xxxx 0 1 ½ * ½ ½ 2.5/5 >>>5 Nimzo 8 2709 -301 0 0 ½ ½ * ½ 1.5/5 >>>6 Hiarcs 7.32 2767 -466 0 0 0 ½ ½ * 1.0/5 >>> >>>Average elo: 2583 <=> Category: 14 >>>gm = 2.65 m = 1.65 >>> >>>02-18-01 Tournament CMT blitz 2001 >>> >>> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >>> 1 little goliath 2603 +1 -1 +1 -1 -1 +0 -1 +1 -1 -1 9.0/10 >>> 8 32 15 11 3 2 10 17 7 28 >>> 2 Chessmaster 8000 2743 -1 +1 +1 -1 +1 -1 -0 -½ +1 -1 8.5/10 >>> 19 12 5 16 10 1 3 11 13 30 >>> 3 gromit 2532 -1 +½ +1 -1 +0 -1 +1 -1 +0 +1 7.5/10 >>> 24 30 6 15 1 17 2 22 4 18 >>> 4 crafty 2650 +0 -0 -1 +1 -1 +1 -½ +1 -1 +1 7.5/10 >>> 32 27 19 29 9 14 12 10 3 6 >>> 5 zchess 2457 -1 +1 -0 +0 -1 +0 -1 +1 -1 -1 7.0/10 >>> 20 17 2 10 26 12 23 29 18 19 >>> 6 bionic 2472 -½ +1 -0 +0 +1 -1 +1 -1 +1 -0 6.5/10 >>> 14 19 3 13 28 16 11 20 12 4 >>> 7 comet 2535 -1 +1 +0 -1 +1 -0 +1 -1 +0 +½ 6.5/10 >>> 21 22 11 28 13 10 15 27 1 9 >>> 8 arasan 2399 -0 +1 -1 +½ -½ +1 -½ +0 -1 +1 6.5/10 >>> 1 20 29 12 21 11 13 16 15 24 >>> 9 inmichess 2334 +0 -0 +1 -1 +0 -1 +1 -1 +1 -½ 6.5/10 >>> 15 28 31 32 4 29 17 21 19 7 >>> 10 tcb 2526 +1 -1 +1 -1 -0 +1 +0 -0 -1 -0 6.0/10 >>> 31 23 16 5 2 7 1 4 14 21 >>> 11 exchess -1 +1 -1 +0 +½ -0 -0 +½ -1 +1 6.0/10 >>> 13 18 7 1 17 8 6 2 23 31 >>> 12 amy 2534 +1 -0 +1 -½ +½ -1 +½ +1 -0 -½ 6.0/10 >>> 25 2 27 8 15 5 4 24 6 13 >>> 13 yace 2705 +0 -1 +1 -1 -0 +1 +½ -1 -0 +½ 6.0/10 >>> 11 25 32 6 7 22 8 28 2 12 >>> 14 phalanx 2507 +½ -0 +½ -1 +1 -0 +1 -1 +0 +1 6.0/10 >>> 6 15 21 23 16 4 22 25 10 27 >>> 15 anmon 2558 -1 +1 -0 +0 -½ +1 -0 +1 +0 +1 5.5/10 >>> 9 14 1 3 12 21 7 26 8 25 >>> 16 Lambchop 2381 -1 +1 -0 +0 -0 +0 -0 -1 +1 +1 5.0/10 >>> 18 24 10 2 14 6 20 8 26 29 >>> 17 bringer 2443 +1 -0 -1 +1 -½ +0 -0 -0 +½ +1 5.0/10 >>> 26 5 30 22 11 3 9 1 24 32 >>> 18 ant 2373 +0 -0 +1 -0 +1 -1 -1 +1 +0 -0 5.0/10 >>> 16 11 20 25 32 24 26 31 5 3 >>> 19 rival 2062 +0 -0 +0 -1 +1 -½ +1 -1 -0 +0 4.5/10 >>> 2 6 4 31 29 27 21 32 9 5 >>> 20 fortress 2264 +0 -0 -0 +0 -1 +1 +1 +0 +1 -½ 4.5/10 >>> 5 8 18 24 31 30 16 6 22 26 >>> 21 sjeng 2153 +0 -½ -½ +1 +½ -0 -0 +0 -½ +1 4.0/10 >>> 7 26 14 30 8 15 19 9 25 10 >>> 22 dragon 2291 +1 -0 +1 -0 +1 -0 -0 +0 -0 +1 4.0/10 >>> 27 7 28 17 25 13 14 3 20 23 >>> 23 nejmet 2489 -1 +0 -0 +0 +1 -1 +0 -1 +0 -0 4.0/10 >>> 29 10 26 14 27 28 5 30 11 22 >>> 24 amyan 2284 +0 -0 +0 -1 -1 +0 +1 -0 -½ -0 3.5/10 >>> 3 16 25 20 30 18 28 12 17 8 >>> 25 gnuchess 2410 -0 +0 -1 +1 -0 +0 -1 +0 +½ -0 3.5/10 >>> 12 13 24 18 22 26 27 14 21 15 >>> 26 wbqueen -0 +½ +1 -½ +0 -1 +0 -0 -0 +½ 3.5/10 >>> 17 21 23 27 5 25 18 15 16 20 >>> 27 tscp 2105 -0 +1 -0 +½ -0 +½ +0 +0 -1 -0 3.0/10 >>> 22 4 12 26 23 19 25 7 29 14 >>> 28 ssechess 2248 -½ +1 -0 +0 -0 +0 -0 +0 -1 +0 2.5/10 >>> 30 9 22 7 6 23 24 13 31 1 >>> 29 averno 2174 +0 -1 +0 -0 -0 +0 +1 -0 +0 -0 2.0/10 >>> 23 31 8 4 19 9 32 5 27 16 >>> 30 chessterfield 2115 +½ -½ +0 -0 +0 -0 -0 +0 -1 +0 2.0/10 >>> 28 3 17 21 24 20 31 23 32 2 >>> 31 dchess 2126 -0 +0 -0 +0 +0 -1 +1 -0 +0 -0 2.0/10 >>> 10 29 9 19 20 32 30 18 28 11 >>> 32 skaki 2082 -1 +0 -0 +0 -0 +0 -0 +0 +0 -0 1.0/10 >>> 4 1 13 9 18 31 29 19 30 17 >>> >>> >>>Here are some good results. >> >>It's placing among the non-comercials, is very uncomplimentary for a 2001 >>comercial program which a few years ago briefly topped the ssdf list.(as >>CM6000). Crafty is missing too. >>S.Taylor > > >I see your reading skills are not very good. In the first crosstable, it had a >4/5 score with ONLY commercial engines. In the 2nd it finished 0.5 point behind >LG2000v2.9a which is a tough enigne and only lost one game. Losses happen. >Work out the performance rating of CM in that event and you will find it >performed above expected or around epected. Also Crafty finished 4th in that >event. Try reading before you type. Makes you look less the fool. > >JW Yes, Crafty is number 4, which I overlooked. Sorry! But I didn't overlook the comercial list. But that was very few games, which is good, but says very little. But you can't just bungle all the amatuer programs together with it to make CM8K to look so great overall. It's nowhere near the same category as tests against recent comercial programs. S.Taylor
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.