Author: Harald Faber
Date: 04:49:25 12/08/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 08, 1998 at 07:11:58, Micheal Cummings wrote: >>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. >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. Agreed. >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. Maybe or even probably there are settings which are stronger. This is always possible. I only wanted to make CM play definitely stronger than original settings. Nothing more, nothing less. >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. Correct. There is nothing to compare when each participant has his own settings, meaning changed playing style and own opening book. In this case there should be added the changes that were made. Otherwise one gets a really wrong impression. >It seems to be it was a freinds get together to play some chess. does not sound >like a serious tournament to me IMHO. Of course it was a serious tourney but some things obviously are left behind the curtain. Did all participants play with their own settings or with original ones? >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. I second that.
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.