Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: CCT3 conclusions

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.