Author: Christopher R. Dorr
Date: 18:35:06 03/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 29, 1999 at 18:08:28, blass uri wrote: > >On March 29, 1999 at 13:33:20, Christopher R. Dorr wrote: > > >>In short, I believe the premise of this thread is somewhat flawed. Crafty has >>not (against humans) been demonstrated to be significantly weaker than anything >>else, especially at speed. > >The results of mark young showed that Hiarcs7 is better than parallel crafty at >10 min+20 seconds or faster time control(5+5 to 5+12) > > > >Here are the results by mark young: >Results: > >Matches with Bob Hyatt. > >Hiarcs7(PII450) Vs. Crafty(Quad Xeon PII 400) Hiarcs7 wins +5 -2 =1 TC >10min 20 sec incs. > > >Server games with Hiarcs7 against Crafty. > >TC - Blitz from 5 min 5 sec incs. to 5 min 12 sec. incs. > >Hiarcs7(PII 450) wins > >+28 -5 =7 > >Avg. speed of the crafty's per game was 668 MHz. Most games were against >multi-cpu Crafty's. > >If crafty is not weaker then how do you explain the result of mark young against >crafty? > If Crafty is not stronger, how do you explain the higher rating on ICC for Crafty? Even at standard, when response time is diminished in importance. There is conflicting data here. I remember the late 80's early 90's when Fritz1 outscored Zarkov 2.5 significantly in computer-computer matches, but was weaker when playing against people. It happened then, and it happens now. I'm not saying that Crafty *isn't* weaker, just that *I'm* not convinced it is. A Single processor Crafty (Mofongo) is over 3050 in blitz on ICC. better then *everything* else. How can you conclusively say that Crafty is weaker when it is the highest rated *anthing* on ICC? I've played just about everything out there, and honestly feel that Crafty may very well be up there with the best of them. Chris Dorr >Uri
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.