Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: CCT3 conclusions

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 0.1 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.