Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 10:45:19 05/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 29, 2001 at 12:48:01, Bruce Moreland wrote: >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. > Yep. I will have to work a little better on _that_ part next time :) Of course, I didn't expect to win any games as I had done no preparations with my engine at all. >>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 What does that mean? That it is a bad idea? In that case, why?
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.