Author: Keith Ian Price
Date: 15:09:57 10/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 1998 at 04:58:51, Moritz Berger wrote: >My advice: > >1) Just *count* the number of excuses needed to cover up CST's performance. > >2) *List* the number of conditions that are declared unfavourable for CST in >hindsight. > >3) *Compare* with performance of "real" chess programs > >4) *Try* it out yourself on ICC - play against Lonnie with the latest CST/Win95 >beta and extend lists 1) and 2). > >5) *Communicate* with the CSTal team on r.g.c.c. - or look up their history on >DejaNews. > >6) *Read* the advertising on www.oxford-softworks.com and try to establish a >logical connection with this and the known facts about and games played by the >program. > > >Doing 1)-6) is better than continuing the debate on CCC, KIP is perfectly right >when he points to the fact that CST is not represented here by its authors. > > >Moritz Also, I have no objection to this sort of post. With the possible exception of the use of the word "real" in point 3. If I wanted the best program for computer-computer games, I wouldn't choose CSTal, so I am not an apologist for its strength in games versus computers. I do like the style of computer chess it plays, and my subjective view is that it is more fun to play than the programs that are rated higher. kp
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.