Author: Jeroen Noomen
Date: 07:03:12 12/31/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 31, 1999 at 08:52:40, Chessfun wrote: >It is a shame you did not use the equal hardware idea you used in the final in >the other rounds. Using the AMD K6-2 500 Mhz on both rebel programs in the >semi-finals and first round while the opponents had the 200 mhz mmx machines >only leaves the whole tournament open to critique. Actually, I just got that idea before the final started. To replay the quarters and semi's didn't appeal much to me. But if I play one tourny again, I will certainly do it that way. >The fact that you choose to use the Rebel programs on the faster hardware and >not do that in another way, such as even tossing a coin. >Also the statement: >"Of course I had to choose which programs would play on the faster machine. >Two of them were out the question for me: My two heroes Rebel and Chess >Tiger." >Is at first glace misleading IMHO since to me it seems that the statement >implies that Rebel and Chess Tiger would NOT get the faster machine, when in >fact they did. The last remark is correct. Of course I meant that Tiger and Rebel will play on the faster hardware. For the two other programs I tossed a coin, actually. >All in all seems the King 2.54 performed as good as anyone losing only after >tie-break on the slower hardware. >Thanks. The King did very well, I completely agree. You also should not forget that a three times faster machine 'only' means a difference of 50-80 Elo-points (depending on the program, see also the SSDF-list). A clean sweep op 3-0 or 4-0 has never been the case. Actually, the matches The King-Junior, Rebel-Nimzo and Rebel-The King were very close. And in the games of the final you could see that the faster machine didn't have an easy job: Five out of six games ended in a draw. Regards and best wishes for the millennium, Jeroen
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.