Author: Shaun Graham
Date: 16:06:50 08/31/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 31, 1998 at 17:57:02, Mark Young wrote: >Is computer Vs computer testing now useless in gauging a chess program’s >strength playing humans? When Crafty gets killed playing Junior 5 by a wide >margin. And Fritz 5 draws a match with Rebel 10 even when Rebel 10 has a 2x >hardware advantage. Is it time to abandon Computer Vs Computer testing all >together? Or are we going to have two standards to judge chess programs? We already do have two standards, Comp vs Comp games wont/can't necessarily tell you anything about which program is best against (the majority of) humans. One chess program being the best playing other chess programs and one chess program >being the best playing humans. And if so what is the best standard to judge a >programs overall strength? Well it would be ideal to calculate one rating against strong humans, and one versus computers to figure that out, but currently the (published) human vs comp games are limited in number. Is it better marketing to show you can destroy all >other programs like Junior5 and Fritz 5 can do, or is it better to show you can >beat a top grandmaster like Rebel 10 can do? It depends on what people pay the most attention too compvs comp games or comp vs human games(the hype).
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.