Author: Tony Hedlund
Date: 07:51:39 03/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 30, 1999 at 03:02:27, Dave Gomboc wrote: >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. Exactly. I played game 100 the morning before the deadline. I made it with 45min. >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.