Author: Johan Hutting
Date: 13:49:05 10/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 21, 2002 at 16:19:57, Richard Pijl wrote: >>'clearly better' is a bit harsch I suppose. I valued (a stable) ant at ~2300, >>while baron is ~2200. It's been a while since I tested with Baron though. > >Which rating list have you been using? I only consider Andreas Hermann's list usually, but unfortunately he stopped. However, I was referring to the games baron played on my comp vs celes. I downloaded it a couple of months ago, so it's possible that the version is rather weak. I guess the use of 'is' is a bit confusing :) I meant I valued the build I had at around 2200 >The ratings are rather the other way >around. While Ant's rating should be quite stable (as the latest version is >around for at least more than a year) Baron has improved a lot (so rating lists >show a little too low rating). And the current version that is playing in Leiden >is way stronger than the latest released version. Just look at what it is doing >in WBEC division 2 at the moment... Which was my point to Uri, you can hardly compare results from earlier (/released) versions with the ones used in tournaments, unless of course those are identical.
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.