Author: Micheal Cummings
Date: 01:42:05 09/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 29, 1999 at 04:24:58, Timothy J. Frohlick wrote: >If CM6000 is on the top of the SSDF then the SSDF is accurate. If CM6000 is in >fifth place and it played against opponents one hundred points weaker than the >top four programs did and obtained a lower winning percentage then the SSDF is >unreliable. > >Sounds like sour grapes to me.... > >Get over it, CMxxxx will be far superior to CM6000 even if CM7000 is not >CMxxxx. > >I too am disappointed with Mindscape for not providing us with a stronger and >better upgrade. That is why most of us go for programs that give us database >and learning features in addition to strong play. This was not a CM6000 post, but in clearly shows the point I am trying to make. I wish people when thinking about the strength of CM6000 think about the engine is which is what is being tested and not the interface and features. I wonder how many people would have complained if Johann went to WCCC99 and took it out. I suspect that people would still be making comparisons about features of the interface. Not sour grapes, the King Engine is what is important, and that is what I push, if you ever read any of my posts, you do not see me pushing the interface as being superior it is the strength of the engine. That is the main problem with CM6K, some people seem to relate the interface to the strength of a engine, that is just stupid. Either way this has nothing to do with what I posted. Better still take your favorite program and run it on the fastest hardware and more than likely it will always be on top, no different from doing it with one program to doing it with four. Why not give CM6K and OTHER programs the chance before you say that I have sour grapes. Like having the fastest men run the 100 meters and not allowing them to enter a race.
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.