Author: Steven Schwartz
Date: 19:29:42 10/24/98
From Thorsten...
- Steve
The tournament is over.
I want to thank all the programmers for their help, some have
supported me with versions, others with good advises how to install or
configure their programs.
It was a great pleasure to do such a tournament. Great fun. And much
of interesting games.
THANK YOU ! Without YOU i would have been unable to make it.
I am planning another tournament, my traditional christmas-tournament.
I will select a few participants out of my tournament and start
another, smaller one.
final tournament-standings:
1 JUNIOR5 JUN.CTG, (5) 8.5 56½ 70 7
Congratulations to Amir Ban and his strong positional playing
chess-program. It plays good chess ALTHOUGH it is a fast searcher.
This is very good. Junior scored as good as in Paris.
On the other hand it is no surprise to me that junior is strong...
always thought so.
2 CSTAL WIN95, (6) 8.0 56½ 70½ 6
Again no surprise to me. I always had 50% against fritz, nimzo and
other programs. So - if i get 50%, anything is possible in a
swiss-tournament.
3-4 HIARCS6, (2) 7.5 57½ 71½ 4
Very good played by hiarcs. But we all know that hiarcs is a strong,
positional playing knowledged based program. So - again no wonder.
NIMZO98 PADERBORN, (14) 7.5 57 71 5
Another fast-searcher that plays good chess. Not that positional like
junior is doing it, but ... good enough. Bravo !
5 CHESS TIGER 11.5, (12) 6.5 58½ 72½ 5
6-12 CHESS TIGER 11.2, (13) 6.0 59 73 4
So the same ranking as in the french championship ? And winning the
spanish championships ?! Whatever. I am sure Christophes program would
be an enrichement to the scene, if - if - IF he would try to put it
into his graphic-tiger user-interface and sell it to the people.
CRAFTY 15.18, (22) 6.0 58½ 68½ 4
Crafty does not play like a computer-program. it plays more
human-like. I like this - of course. I was a little surprised that it
played THAT strong. But bob always told us. Maybe i underestimated his
judgement. Sorry. But now we know better.
CHESSMASTER 5000, (7) 6.0 55½ 68 4
Next tournament i will use THE KING. Some people claim the original
the king would be stronger than chessmaster. we will see then.
ZARKOV 4.2C, (23) 6.0 51½ 62½ 6
WCHESS 1.04, (18) 6.0 51 62 5
Good done by both american programs. Without John and Dave,
computerchess would be boring too.
Zarkov has learned about king-safety, but still has problems with
passed pawns.
Wchess needs also some endgame-progress. But Dave HAS definetely made
a stronger engine, the only problem with USCF-chess is NOT Dave's
engine, but the fact the user-interface is so buggy that serious
testing is not possible (the user-interface forces the engine to move
in an instant sometimes. you cannot identify if it is permanent-brain
or bug). What a pity. Because USCF-chess HAS endgame tablebases.
Please Dave, do us a favour and give us a new wchess-engine that has
endgame stuff and a WORKING user-interface, or a patch for uscf-chess.
Thanks.
REBEL 9, (3) 6.0 49 56½ 4
Rebel9 was a little disapointing in this tournament. But ed has a new
version, and I will ask him to get licence-rights to use rebel10 in my
next christmas-tournament. Hope he will licence me to publish results,
because i think rebel10 could have played stronger in a field like the
participants in the tournament.
FRITZ 5.16 POWER.CTG, (4) 6.0 44 52½ 4
In the end it got 6 out of 11. IMO as weak as my fritz always plays,
and as weak as it played in paris/jakarta.
Therefore NO surprise to me.
Also the games are horrible. No good chess.
13-19 GENIUS5, (8) 5.5 55½ 65 3
Still a program you have to beat thrice before it is really dead.
MCHESS 7.1, (1) 5.5 53 64½ 3
ooops. Please stronger next time ! Maybe i have to ask peter/marty for
some configuration stuff ?!?
COMET A95, (21) 5.5 50½ 59 5
Well done comet. On the right way. A95 is playing stronger than a94.
How will A96 play ?!
CHESSMASTER 5555, (17) 5.5 47 55 3
Cannot convince me much that 5555-styling is better than the default.
DIEP 1.58.13, (10) 5.5 43½ 52 5
Vince - version 1.58.10 was definetely stronger. Shit.
Hope you get the right version reconstructed.
EUGEN 7.5B, (15) 5.5 43 51 5
Same comment: version 7.2 was IMO much stronger.
Shit.
PHALANX, (11) 5.5 42½ 50 4
We will have to take an eye on this program. If the programmer can
handle the endgame-topic better, it is a serious enemy.
20 VIRTUAL2, (9) 5.0 45½ 51½ 4
IMO this ranking is again an understatement. IMO virtual is much
stronger. What shall I say. French engineers create the most
interesting and the best cars in the world (e.g. the citroen Xantia,
Saxo or XM) but nobody here in germany buys them. Only Schimanski
knows and drives a french car. And ... yes - i am driving french car
too. But all the other people in the world have never heard of a
french citroen car, or ?! I don't understand this. If a company has
good products, but cannot win the hearts of the customer, there is
something wrong with the PR-stuff. Claudia Schiffer makes advertising
for citroen. Maybe they should change and let Goetz George make PR for
citroen ?! The same can be said about Virtual. It is strong. But to
less people know about this.
21 DIAMOND 2, (16) 4.0 43½ 49½ 3
Well done Diamond.
22 SOCRATES X, (24) 3.0 45½ 51½ 2
To bad. Don - I have bought Linux. I hope i will see a later version
of your program in my next tournament, running on Linux ?!?
23 DIOGENES 4.72, (19) 1.5 45½ 51½ 1
24 CAISSA98 5.15, (20) 0.0 45½ 53 0
Best wishes to Jörg Burwitz and Vivianca Wirz for participating.
I am sure Jörgs next program with nullmove, or vivianca's next program
will make a better standing.
Till later.
Wish you all the best.
best wishes
mclane
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.