Author: Micheal Cummings
Date: 04:11:58 12/08/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 08, 1998 at 06:30:17, Bert Seifriz wrote: >On December 08, 1998 at 05:50:01, Micheal Cummings wrote: > >> >>Intellegence has nothing to do with this. I am responding to a post which said >>this was the biggest and strongest tornament of them all. I can see what this >>tournament was. So you can talk on all you want about what it is and means to >>play in this tournament. >> >>Hardware does have allot to do with the strength of play, and maybe the people >>there even on weaker hardware did not set the software to maximum strength. I >>think if all was fair then those result would be very different. >> >>But as you say that is not what this tournament was about. To me sounds like a >>bunch of people getting to gether and playing some computer chess. That is all >>it really is. >> >>To me, it sounds like a great day out, but on top quality competition, then >>Rebel has nothing to rave on about. It was a cheap win IMHO. >> >>To sum up a great bit of fun, but a waste of time in computer chess. > > >This is possibly exactly where you are wrong. I happen to know some >of the participants. These guys understand a lot about computer chess, >it is one of their main hobbies. You can see them as kibitzers and >operators at world championships, you >can read their articles about computer chess in the chess papers here, >some bought literally every piece of chess software which was ever >available. (One told me to send him new programs by double fast extra >courier, no matter what it costs, just that he could test it faster >than others, which I did not in order to save him money.) >So you can be sure that they know what they are talking about let alone >that they know how to install their software. Greetings Bert Hardware play a big difference in my view. And just because they are computer user with every bit of software does not make them an expert on Chess programs and settings. Like for CM5x00 and CM6K, with regard to the Faber settings, I have settings which I think and through my tests beat the Faber settings. Everyone seems to regard his settings as strong, well I think mine are stronger and have posted them here in the past. The only way I will consider a tournament to be worthy of anything, is when the programmer or expert representing that program, plays on equal hardware aginst other programs. I do not care if the tournament you took part in were all GM's, I would doubt their abilty to spend allot of their time finding and testing which settings are the best for that program. They would not have the time I assume. They would need it to spend on their own game in order not to lose their next match. But that is not the point. The point is, they might have settings which they think are good, as do I. I know allot about computers and Chess, it is just a matter of opinion most of the time. It seems to be it was a freinds get together to play some chess. does not sound like a serious tournament to me IMHO. And if you know about computers and chess running CM6K on a P100 (which I have) and on a PII 450 (which I also have) I would say there was about a 170 point difference when playing each other (which I have). The results are fun results, not serious. I take nothing from them, they mean nothing to me. And Rebel winning it also mean nothing to me.
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.