Author: Marcus Kaestner
Date: 14:54:06 01/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
>> >>sorry enrique, but here you are definetely wrong. > >To say this you need "definite" proof, which you don't. I don't either, by the >way, so let's call it guesseing with the help of some facts. ok. let´s say that´s my data out of thousands of games. > >I have played quite a few 40:2 tournaments and matches, starting in 1981. Also >then I started playing the same participants at half the time. Results were very >similar, with the notable exception of Mephisto, down in 1983. > >As someone said before, 40/40 on P500s is similar to 120/40 in P200s. What's >wrong with playing 40:2 on P200s? The other way round: will your 40:2 results nothing is wrong. i only wanted to say that with 3h/game on p100 you will get another result as on 3h/game on p1000 because some programs gaines more strength than others. >of >today be not valid when 3x faster cpus arrive? More: do you see big >discrepancies in the SSDF list according to the platform being used? the ssdf list is not very useful for that. many programs are not tested on all platforms. for example nimzo, tiger, chessmaster, rebel and so on. much more helpful for that is the chessbits rating list, i think. there are all programs on 5m/g 30m/g and 3h/g. however, also in the ssdf list you see that hiarcs gets disadvantage, nimzo advantage of faster cpus. on p200 n99 is clearly behind hiarcs while on k6-450 nimzo is in front. the same is on the chessbits list with n7.32. >40/40 is 2h/game, close enough to your 3h/game. Nimzo is strong, but not very really? i think 40/40 is one minute per move! 3h/game is about 2.5 minutes/move. >top, I think after what I have seen. The SSDF plays 40:2 and Nimzo is not on >top. Unless by "very top" you mean one of the group on top. sorry i meant the group on top (first 3 or 4 progs). marcus
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.