Author: Alexander Kure
Date: 00:17:12 01/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 23, 2000 at 20:03:32, Peter McKenzie wrote: Hi Peter, [snipped] >>1. Nimzo >>2. Ferret > >I understand you may have had alot of feedback, but I don't think >the seeding should be done by a voting process. It should be done >using some sort of logic. The only logic that I can think of that would >place Nimzo above Ferret is that Nimzo is a commercial program. Maybe alot of >people bought it and think its strong, maybe people are impressed by SSDF? Of >course Ferret isn't on the SSDF, and in any case SSDF use equal hardware. >Ferret will use a machine that is effectively TWICE as fast as Nimzo's machine. > >If you use the results of previous computer tournaments as a guide, then it >seems clear Ferret should be in front. > >Just look at the following results I picked up from the ICCA page: > >World Computer Champ's 1999: Ferret 2nd (5.5/7), Nimzo 8th (4.5/7) >World Micro Computer Champ's 1997: Ferret 5th, Nimzo didn't play Just to keep the records straight: In fact Nimzo did play in Paris 1997, under the Name Hydra, ending up on place 7 if my memory serves me well. He also played against Ferret in this tournament, which ended in a draw. There was also a Blitz Tournament, which Ferret managed to win convincingly (he also won against Nimzo) >World Micro Computer Champ's 1996: Ferret 2nd (8.5/9), Nimzo 3rd (7.5/9) >World Micro Computer Champ's 1995: both programs tied, playoff awarded to Ferret >by default. [snipped] Personally, i think that Ferret should be placed before Nimzo in the seedings, for the same reasons you gave above. I think it's a shame that Nimzo is the only top commercial program that will participate in this event! Greetings Alex
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.