Author: Micheal Cummings
Date: 23:00:40 11/18/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 18, 1999 at 20:06:37, Christophe Theron wrote: >OK. I understand. > >So maybe we can find a way to agree somehow. > >Let's say the list is not perfect due to lack of physical resources, that it is >necessarily unfair because every program cannot be tested on every hardware, but >that the people doing the list are trying to make it as fair as possible given >the physical limitations they have to deal with. > >If we at least agree that they are trying to do their best and that it's not >easy for them to please everyone, well that's a good compromise. > > > Christophe I have no problem with the effort they put in. Yes they work hard at the results they obtain. But you have already agreed with me that because of limited resources that the list is not a fair indication of all the top chess programs. Which is all I am saying. I am not saying that the SSDF are a bunch of losers or anything. Just that the list in not fair. So I agree they are doing their best, which is what I always thought. And all you can do is compramise, because unless there is a shake up and a larger cashflow of resources this will not change. But they could limit the amount of complaint if they thought more carefully about how they go about the list. How would people have felt if Nimzo was the only program used on the 450, was way ahead of the rest. And on the 200MMX machines it was 5th on those machines behind four other programs played on the 200MMX. Nimzo could never be ahead of CM6K in 200MMX machines, therefor I think has no right to be ahead of it at all. I know a very big statement, but goes to show what I feel and how I am trying to say things.
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.