Author: Micheal Cummings
Date: 00:35:08 12/09/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 1998 at 03:27:08, Marcus Kaestner wrote: > >> >>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? >> > >Some people played original, some with its own settings. But it is also on every >tournament, isn´t it? Also the programmers are changing their settings from >round to round depending on the next opponent or on the results of the last >rounds. > >If you want, no result in no tournament is correct, even in sweden because they >often makes mistakes which is normal and happens to everyone who operates lots >of programs. > >But let me give one more comment to the hardware: Surely, if you compete one >program against itself, this one which have a double-speed hardware has a favor >because it gets an extra ply out of the hardware-speed. > >But if you play different programs against each other the things are changing >dramaticly. Sure, the program which has the faster hardware is also in favor, >but very often cannot get a result out of this. For example: If I play my Nimzo >3.5 with my special settings and implemented knowledge against itself, the >double-speed Nimzo will score about 6,5:3,5. But if I play against Rebel 10, the >score is 5:5 doesn´t matter on which machine. If I play Fritz 5, the score is >6:4 for me, doesn´t matter which machine, If I play Rebel 9 the score is 6:4 for >me doesn´t matter which machine and so on. The key is the using of the opening >variations, settings and knowledge. In the right opening, when my program has >good knowledge he will win the game (or draw) surely, doesn´t matter on which >hardware. When a program can play against the style of the other, the hardware >is not important except in cases of blundering. > >Take a look at Genius 5 in this tournament. On P60 he made a great score because >he always played good openings. The points or half-points it loss, it loss of >course of blunders (slow hardware!!). On the other side Genius 5 on the very >fast PentiumII-450 played bad openings and made a very bad score also he looked >about 3 plys deeper than Genius on P60!! > >It´s always the same: The hardware is the less important component of all in a >round tournament! > >But let genius 5 play against itself on P60 and P450 about 100 games, the score >will be about 70:30 for the fast machine. > >But the hole discussion is fruitless because some people do not want to >understand. > >But I don´t let it be that somebody says to me that we are fools and have no >idea of computerchess. > >This persons can bet with me: >I compete every person with CM6000 against my Rebel 10 on half-speed hardware >about a 10 games match about $1000.-- > >I´m really not a Rebel fan, but I´m sure I will win every bet against CM6000 >also on much slower hardware. > >Marcus If you were ever trying to prove a point in this subject, then you last comment about Rebel 10 winning no matter what just made you look like a fool. How can you make a comment like that. I think it has to be one of the most stupid things I have ever hear someone say. If you knew anything about computer Chess how could you make a comment like that. If the people playing in that tournament have the same views as you do, then I even say more strongly that the tournament was nothing more than a joke. Man, I still cannot believe you believe what you said. Fantasy Land.
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.