Author: Dan Kiski
Date: 08:33:19 12/09/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 1998 at 03:35:08, Micheal Cummings wrote: > >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. As an owner of both Rebel 10 and the cm6k, I would take any bet that said Rebel 10 would beat the cm6k at any time control. I have played at least 200 games between these two and the cm6k is a Rebel 10 killer !!!. By the way I would also take the cm55o00 over the rebel 10 too !! Dan Kiski.
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.