Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:39:22 02/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 03, 2004 at 07:40:14, Dr. Oliver Brausch wrote: >First I have to thank a lot to Peter Skinner, who really did an >amazing and ambitious job as Operator. Unfortunataly the latest >(and stronger) Version of OliThink was not stable and so Peter >spent hours with me to get a stable (and weaker) version. > >Then I want to thank Dann Corbit, who no only inspired me taking part >to this tourney. but to keep on working on this project beside >my work and private life. > >The first surprise was that OliThink was seeded 24. with an ELO of >2400, which was overrated for this time control. >OliThink never has been a engine for standard games. >Its strength always focused on very fast games. e.g. in blitz games >it often kicked Alarm's butt which did its revenge in CCT6. I think that it was simply unlucky against alarm. alarm scored less than olithink in the tournament and you cannot decide based on one game. alarm was also ranked behind olithink in Leo's tournament see http://wbec-ridderkerk.nl/html/his6thedition.html > >So I am really not unhappy with the result of 4 out of 9. With some >more luck it could have been even some points more (see Peter's >article) I do not think that you could expect more than 4 out of 9 engines that scored 4.5/9 are clearly stronger than olithink(I can mention wildcat and the baron and Falcon and chezzz). Dorkey and averno are supposed to be also clearly better than olithink and scored the same. Frenzee that is clearly better than olithink based on Leo's results scored 1/2 point less than olithink. Uri
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.