Author: George Sobala
Date: 05:19:46 07/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2002 at 08:12:10, stuart taylor wrote: >On July 09, 2002 at 07:54:37, Kevin Strickland wrote: > >>Results >>No Name Total Result Name Total >> >> 1 Brutus, [4] : Junior, [3.5] >> 2 Sjeng, [3] 0:1 Shredder, [4] >> 3 Quest, [3.5] : Diep, [3] >> 4 IsiChess X, [3] 1:0 Warp, [3] >> 5 XiniX, [2.5] =:= Ikarus, [3] >> 6 Goliath, [2] : ParSOS, [2.5] >> 7 Insomniac, [1.5] =:= Chinito, [2] >> 8 NoonianChess, [1.5] : SpiderChess, [1.5] >> 9 Postmodernist, [1.5] : Sharky, [0] > >What I never understand is why amatuer programs are sometimes the main >contestants in a computer championship, but not many comercials (I mean, I don't >see why the programmer himself need necesarily attend in person). > And what is even more baffling is that sometimes it looks like an amatuer >trounces the few comercials which are there. Here too, if not the most extreme >case, but still interesting is that Brutus seems to tie only with Shredder. >Junior seems to have not quite made it. > I know that it's not enough games to prove anything, but from this sampling of >games does it really mean that Brutus still MIGHT be with the top commercials? > Atleast, doesn't it look like it might be way better than Genius 3 till 6.5 or >Hiarcs 6, if not 7, 7.32 or even 8? ( If so, no wonder then that programmers >sometimes give old versions as freeware. They are nowhere near compatible even >with top amatuers anymore)! >S.Taylor I wouldn't really class Brutus as "amateur"! It is not a "commercial" but it is "academic on experimental hardware".
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.