Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 00:02:27 03/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 29, 1999 at 00:06:46, Micheal Cummings wrote: >In the past I have called the SSDF rubbish for how they play their games, but I >have heard from the best that the rankings, while their maybe small errors are >pretty well accurate. > >I have never questions their rankings, but I have questioned their non show of >some programs, and still no Rebel 10. So I am pretty happy that now people will >at least have to come to the terms that CM6K is one of the very best chess >engine out their. When you questioned the "no-show" of CM6000, you were told it was because the games had to be played by hand, and it takes a long time to do that. Let's face it, CM6000 just barely made the list this time around: the SSDF does not report results for programs that have played less than 100 games. I imagine they got a bunch of people playing the last few just so that we wouldn't have to wait a couple more months to see where it stood. Now you are questioning the "no-show" of Rebel 10. Well, it has already been discussed here, but perhaps you missed it. The license agreement for Rebel 10 does not permit the publication of computer vs. computer testing without the permission of Schroder B.V. Indeed, it explicitly mentions "such as the SSDF". So unless Ed decides he's going to allow them to test it, it's not going to show up, period. Dave Gomboc
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.