Author: Micheal Cummings
Date: 04:19:49 11/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 1999 at 06:45:10, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >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? In my other posts I did congradulate Chris and Chess Tiger. But it is hard to make comment about the fairness of the list without making tiger to be a bad person in all of this, which of course they are not. Of course the results are valid, the games were played. But that does make it the list a true reflection of how things are. I like Christopher, I am not complaining about his program, I am complaining AGAIN how the SSDF conducts their list. And I stand by my words that a program that is not available to the public should not be on the list. These types of programs have their time to shine during WCC. Why would I care about a program I will not be able to play. That is why programs that we cannot use should not be included. Until they can play much more programs on faster hardware then this list means very little to me in the order which it stands today. If tiger is number 1 when more programs have been played on the faster hardware, it will not change my view on it, which is positive. It is ahead of five other programs, so it must be strong, but it is not ahead in my view of other top programs on the market until they have at least had the chance. All this crap about being a poor sport and the like is pure rubbish. To me the list is like Carl Lewis running the 100 meters against 5 year olds and claiming to be the best when he wins. Or Capablanca or Kasparov picking and chosing crap opponents and setting high playing fees in order to keep them on top. Results in those cases are valid, BUT FAIR ? These results are not even representative of 50% of the programs. This is NOT a chess tiger complaint, This arguement carried on from the last list. I challenge the SSDF selective playing list with the Cummings World Rankings List CM6K Rebel 10 Shredder 2 This list is quite simple the programs have all played each other in the same amount of games and are ranked on who won the most games. How credible is my list compared to the SSDF. And how dare anyone pick on my list or the programs ranked. If anyone does you are either sore losers, poor sports, spoil sports. I did my best with the prgrams and resources I had. Apart from how I rank my programs, every other aspect sounds like the SSDF. The SSDF should get a list that is representative to as many programs they can, or simply change the way they publish the list.
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.