Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 05:28:12 10/18/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 1998 at 04:40:54, Harald Faber wrote: >On October 17, 1998 at 23:09:16, Mark Young wrote: > >>I like computer test. I just wish we could stop testing the top of the line >>programs Vs CST. Unless the point of this is to gauge which program is best by >>how badly the beat CST. >>>Enrique > >Maybe it is to demonstrate that Thorsten is wrong. He ALWAYS claims that CST is >AS STRONG as the top commercial programs. So nothing to say against games >between CST and the top. It's not so much showing that Thorsten is wrong as being irritated by so many ringing bells every time CST wins a game and so much silence when it loses, presenting it as if it were an eater of giants. I still remember the first results posted here, where CST supposedly defeated Nimzo 98 2-0 and Fritz 5 also by 2-0. Then I did the same as now with these results: CST-Nimzo98 3.5-15.5 (+2 -14 =3) CST-Fritz 5 1.5-8.5 (+0 -7 =3) CST-Junior 5 1.5-7.5 (+0 -6 =3) CST scored a total of 17.1%, or -263 Elo, all games at 40/40. Interesting as CST may be, it is far from being capable of competing on equal basis with some much stronger programs. One thing is to see CST as a fun program and an interesting project, and a very different one to present it as the achievement it is not. Enrique
This page took 0.01 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.