Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 06:08:53 05/29/01
I don't understand why so many people make such precise conclusions from the result of CCT3. The number of games played was so small that it is not even remotely close to be statistically significant. It's not to belittle the victory of Ferret, as it's not a bad candidate for (one of) the best programs participating. It's just that one can't conclude anything about a program such as shredder, based on such sparse material. And I'm not even going to go into the hardware differences and handicaps, that makes the results even more random. When I look at the final standing of the tournament, I agree with the order of engines in general. That is, Celes and Chezzz _are_ probably weaker than Fritz and Ferret. But I'm also convinced that Shredder, Yace, LambChop and other are generally better than GNUChess (although I've never found GNUChess to be as bad as everyone says). So let's all take CCT3 for what it is: good fun. BTW. I can't wait until it's time for CCT4. Can't we make a monthly 1 day tournament, just for fun? I don't know anything about tournament systems, but there must be some kind of knockout system, where a lot of programs can play a tournament in relatively short time. This should be absolutely informal, and participation should be done by just showing up on the server 30 minutes in advance or so.
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.