Author: Stefan Pohl
Date: 10:08:43 06/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 21, 2003 at 12:50:31, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: >Hi Stefan, > >it is very intersting to see engines having a very different behaviour >when playing FRC games. > >But conventional engines cannot at all represent the currend development >of FRC aware engines. So it does not make any sense to declare an engine >because of your test to be the best FRC engine. This is like declaring >the winner of a 100 meter sprint to be the world decathlon champion. > >There are 960 FRC starting positions, and it would be very contraproductive >to the development of FRC aware engines, when discriminating the existing >three FRC engines [http://www.rescon.de/Compu/Fullchess5_e.html] (bottom) >by comparing them to professional non-FRC engines. > >So you may call it Micro-FRC tournament to avoid such unecessary confusions, >but not FRC tournament. Even any traditional game of chess is an FRC game, >because Fischer Random Chess is an upper set to chess. But it is absolutly >misleading to claim the current computer chess champion to be the real FRC >champion too. So please think it over. > >Regards, Reinhard Sorry Reinhard, do you want to play (in the future) a tournament with the best 10 engines and all 960 FRC-positions??? Thats the only FRC-tournament, which is no "Micro-FRC"... Will take 100-200 years, I think. And by the way: Each tournament of engines (normal chess) with opening books or the noomen-select-positions is only "Micro-Chess", because not ALL possible opening moves are used...So all computertournaments (normal chess) in the last 20 years are "Micro-Chess" and worthless??? Perhaps you should think it over... Greetings - Stefan Pohl
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.