Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 16:53:37 06/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2001 at 19:43:13, Slater Wold wrote: [snip] >It's hard to prove ANYTHING in chess. Especially computer chess. If Deep Fritz >beat Chess Tiger 75 times out of a 100 game match, there would still be people >who would say Chess Tiger was better, and 100 games is not enough. I dunno. I >just try to keep out of these kinds of debates. I never read the original post, but I do have one observation: You probably asked the question in the wrong place. There are not many chess *players* here (though there are a few really good ones like Robin Smith, Elvis, Come, Vincent...) Mostly, it's a collection of programmers and program end-users. I think you would probably to better on news:rec.games.chess.analysis. But then again, I don't really think you will find a *reliable* answer anywhere on the planet. Quite frankly, I don't think anyone knows which program would play the best against a human. I think Junior and Rebel have the best and most proven track record. But then again, maybe it's only because they are the ones that have played the most human/machine games. Could be Fritz or Chess Tiger would be better. Maybe Hiarcs... Who knows? One thing for sure, any advice you did receive would be an opinion, and if you got five of them, I bet they would all be different. I think the method you decided on is a pretty good one. You might as well just pick something from the top of the SSDF list in that case, since they have already run the experiment for you. My personal choice would be Junior or Rebel -- a coin toss to divide between 'em.
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.