Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 03:45:10 11/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 1999 at 05:10:03, Jürgen Hartmann wrote: >There is no doubt that Chess Tigers good SSDF result is valid. Many other >testers reported the same or better scores. > >Why not simply congratulate Christophe Théron to his excellent work? (Sad, pathetic, hilarious: you pick), isn't it? >The SSDF tested Fritz 5.00 also in a version which was not released to the >public and in retrospect the results look rather ok. You are so right. All the conspiracy theories about CB's "secret" autoplayer have been proven wrong when the autoplayer became public and CB programs kept scoring just as well as before. >The pattern is always the same and I find it utterly boring: People start >bickering and arguing about a new SSDF list whenever 'their' program is not on >top of the new list. It seems more satisfaying to cut the head of the messenger than admitting the merits of someone else's program... A new meaning of "sportsmanship"? >I predict that we'll probably see some hot 'open letters' from ChessBase now >soon protesting about the unpublished Tiger, like Stefan Meyer-Kahlen and >Richard Lang did when Fritz5.00 was number 1. I couldn't agree more with this post of yours, but here I must object: Stefan Meyer-Kahlen and Richard Lang stayed elegantly out of all that mess concerning F5, the SSDF and the black magics of autoplayers. Enrique >About the parallel machines: The SSDF will probably do the same what they did >always: As soon as some strong parallel programs are available commercially, >they'll buy the proper machines. At the moment there is none available. > >Go Tiger Go! > >Jürgen
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.