Author: Tom Likens
Date: 17:52:44 02/08/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 08, 2005 at 11:10:17, Daniel Shawul wrote: >On February 08, 2005 at 09:52:07, Anthony Cozzie wrote: > >>On February 08, 2005 at 00:09:45, Daniel Shawul wrote: >> >>>Hello every one, >>> I read in the threads below that some people still suspect >>>danchess to be a clone. It is not a clone of any engine . If any body has any >>>doubts , he can ask me and i can send the source to a reliable person so that >>>it is checked. But please don't make posts here and there telling what you think >>>it is. >>> Danchess is participating in every other tournament because >>>it is found not to be a clone. In WBEC for example a group of people checked it >>>and found it not to be a clone so it is participating. There is no place ,at >>>least one that i know of, that danchess is not particaipating because of this >>>issue. >>>I have sent my source to Hyatt a couple of times but i do not know if he checked >>>it or not,becaues i have got no response. If he wants i can send it to him >>>again,but it will only be a waste of his time and mine since there is no >>>similarity. >>> My current version is as strong as crafty even better which i am very proud >>>of. Check the games at AEGT where danchess trashed crafty 7.5 - 2.5. >>>somepeople just like talking about others. I like to work rather than talk. >>>I am sorry if i sounded very pompous but that is not my intention. >>> >>>best wishes >>>daniel >> >>I've been quite impressed by the improvements in DanChess (including the >>parallel code), but 10 games is not _nearly_ enough to draw conclusions. I've >>seen Zappa beat Crafty 10 times in a row, and vice versa . . . . >> >>anthony > > I think i made a little mistake in my statement above > My current version is as strong as crafty even **SOMETIMES** better... > >without **SOMETIMES** the sentence would have been incomplete. > > As i said in my reply to Uri. I am not drawing any conclusions with this >games,I know statistics is a tricky thing. >But still i think i can say with a good safety factor that danchess is as strong >as crafty. This ofcourse depends on the definition of "as strong". For me +- >30elo is insignificant. > I really don't want to discuss on this issue further because this is not Why i >originally posted the message. >Hope you understand. >daniel Hey Dan, Well, you can certainly feel justified in saying that beating Crafty 7.5-2.5 is better than *losing* by the same margin. Of course as others have pointed out statistically insignificant, but what the heck. BTW, like Anthony I've also been impressed with DanChess's improvement over the last year, congratulations and good luck in CCT7. regards, --tom
This page took 0 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.