Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 14:29:44 05/02/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 02, 2004 at 15:58:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 02, 2004 at 15:05:08, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>>>>>It's the world championship. It has a 30-year pedigree. Sure, it's not as >>>>>>scientifically valid as the SSDF list. Nonetheless, it is the most important >>>>>>computer chess event on the planet, bar none. >>>>>> >>>>>>Dave >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Sorry, but this is wrong. Last time there were 16 participants. Last CCT had >>>>>over 50. I'll take the over 50... >>>> >>>>You're ignoring the quality of the participants. >>>> >>>>Dave >>> >>>Let's see. CCT had junior. New hiarcs. Crafty on a monster machine. >>>Ruffian. I'd take the top 8 from the last CCT and compare them against >>>the top 8 of the last WCCC.... Quality was very high at CCT6 too... >> >>If you're only going to look at the top eight, then the "50" doesn't mean much, >>does it? > >Actually it does. You mentioned quality. Quality is at the top. Quantity is >where the top and bottom are farther apart. > >The bottom of the WCCC was no better than the bottom of the CCT There are enough games at the WCCC that everyone with a chance in hell gets to play at least three of the top four programs. Consequently. there's less variability in the results at the top. I also think the average strength of WCCC was considerably higher than that of CCT-6. Besides, quantity doesn't mean much when you're trying to select a champion. >, but CCT had a >+lot+ more players between the top and bottom. I think it is a tougher >competition without the too-many-rounds-for-the-number-of-players-blues seen at >the WCCC... Again, I disagree. The tournament with Shredder and Fritz in it is tougher (to win), period. >> Most of those 50 have rather little against the top engines. >>(Nonetheless, I think it's great that the strength variety in that tournament is >>wide enough that everyone has a chance to win at least a couple of games. It >>sounds like a fun event, and if I had a chess program, I'd probably play it in >>CCT too.) >> >>As you correctly point out, the top of the field at CCT-6 was reasonably strong. >> However, the top of the field at WCCC '03 was stronger -- and the top of the >>field at WCCC '04 will be stronger again. > >>WCCC '03 top finishers: 9.5/11 Shredder, Fritz, 9/11 Junior, 8.5/11 Brutus, 6/11 >>Green Light, Diep. > >Top of CCT6 had hiarcs, Junior, crafty (quad opteron), zappa, to name just 4 >that are very tough. I suspect if you have a tournament with those 8 programs, >_anything_ could happen. Either group, any program, could have won.... Keep reading... >>CCT-6 top finishers: 7/9 Crafty, Hiarcs, Zappa, 6.5/9 Junior, Ruffian, King of >>Kings. I did include those in my message. ;-) >>Also, IIRC, Junior at CCT-6 != Junior at WCCC: at CCT they weren't able to use >>their normal opening book due to the automated restriction (some proprietary >>data format incompatibility issue). >> >>It'd be nice to see Crafty at the WCCC. Is there some chance of getting >>someone who will be attending to operate it? > >A few years ago they changed the rules to make that impossible. :-( Well, I still don't understand why it's impossible to get a week away from classes. Most professors here just find substitute lecturers. Mind you, I see from UAB's CS home page that the department is not all that large, which could make it harder to find subs. >They then >chose to not enforce the rule later, but when you think about it, who really >cares nowadays. CCT had almost 4x the players. From a wider international >group of participants. I think it will do just fine... Whatever floats your boat. :-( Dave
This page took 0.02 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.