Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 09:48:01 05/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 29, 2001 at 09:08:53, David Rasmussen wrote: >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. Of course. All you can do is give yourself a chance to win. >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. Augh, eek. bruce
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.