Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 00:17:39 01/03/00
Go up one level in this thread
>>This is the last I got with my test. Results keep looking remarkably >>similar to the SSDF list. It can't be just random. >> >> Test SSDF scale >>RT 12 2695 >>T12-dos 0 2683 >>CM6K -10 2673 >>N732 -20 2663 >>F532 -21 2662 >>F6 -22 2661 >>H732 -32 2651 >>T1175 -37 2646 >>N99a -43 2640 >>J6 -53 2630 >>J5 -58 2625 >>S4 -69 2614 >>R9 -80 2603 >>C1701 -98 2585 >>M8 -117 2566 >>G6 -124 2559 >> >>Enrique > > >Remarkable, indeed. It is a very good thing that you publish it before the next >SSDF list, so people will be convinced of the accuracy of your tests, like I >have been convinced before the last SSDF list was published. Remarkable? If Enrique's prediction is right than this will be a revolution :) Ed >We will have in the next list at least one new program, Junior 6, and I just >can't wait to see if its SSDF rating matches yours. >If it is so, it's rather disappointing for Amir. But other testers say that >Junior 6 is probably 40 elo points above Junior 5, so the comparison with your >rating is going to be interesting. > >I believe that you are right, and the differences between your list and the SSDF >list could help to discover which programs are superior to others in terms of >knowledge. > >Hiarcs was supposed to have a lot of knowledge (just because it is a "slow" >searcher, the usual fairytale), but your list would tend to show that this >program has not much more knowledge than the others, or that this knowledge >does not give it any superiority. > >I don't know if it is so, but your list at least provides some experimental >data. That's interesting. > > > Christophe
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.