Author: blass uri
Date: 02:59:00 12/08/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 08, 1998 at 05:22:49, Marcus Kaestner wrote: >Some guys here are really stupid. > >First of all the point is not which program is best. The point is which >combination (program/hardware/user)is best, because every operator uses his own >books, his own styles and his own time-management which depends on the program >you have to beat. And so it doesn´t matter on which hardware you play. And the >hardware is the less point which makes a participant a winner. Sure, with better >hardware you have better chances, but notice that Genius on P60 earned 4 Points >and Genius on PII-468 earned only 2.5 points. Notice that Shredder 3 on P200 >earned 4 points and on K6-350 earned oonly 2.5 points. Notice that Gandalf on >P200 earned also more points than Gandalf on PII-350 and so on. Notice also that >Genius 5 on P60 beats Nimzo 99 made remis against Fritz 5.32 and Junior (all on >K6-400)!! Where is the improvement? Also I am a hardware-freak (I had the >fastest machine on this tournament) I have to realize that the importance of the >hardware is going to zero on a 7 round tournament because other factors (good >books, good settings, luck, and so on) are much much more important. > >The second point is we made a team score. Normally one team depends on a fast >and a slow computer, so that the teams are as equal as possible to make a fair >contest. Ok, the Rebel-team had an hardware-advantage but Rebel would have won >also on slower hardware. >The Nimzo-team (my team) had with distance the best hardware, probably the best >books, but did it help? No, because bad circumstances and bugs pushed me back. >That is important! To have a homogen combination and a stable hardware/program >without bugs and hardware-errors! > >The third point is that I cannot hear any longer the comments of >"self-made-experts" which never in their life had participate on a real >tournament. There is much diffrence to a home-tournament where you have all the >time, no stress, no pressure. Those people gave big comments but having no >experience. In germany we say: blind persons are talking about seeing!!! > >The last point is that it is possible to see how good a program plays, also when >it plays on weak machines. You see the style of his playing, you see the plans >he discovers and you see the blunders. The first two points have nothing to do >with hardware and under all aspects the Rebel 10 program was far far away the >best chess player. For example: The Nimzo-team made the 4th place, but the >playing style was terrible. Nearly every win of Nimzo99 was out of a lost game >because the oppenent blundered. Very different Rebel 10. He never came in a lost >game. Different also Fritz. He came in lost games but had luck. I do not think that saving lost games is luck. Uri
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.