Author: Jeroen van Dorp
Date: 13:43:42 02/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2000 at 16:27:29, Christophe Theron wrote: >Tiger is NOT focused on comp-comp games. It happens to do well in comp-comp, Nice understatement. ;) >but >it has not been designed with this in mind. > I stand corrected. Point was of course that it's not easy to compare engines on such a one-to-one basis. If Kasparov is rated 150 points higher that John Doe, but John Doe never lost one of his 1500 games against Kasparov, it can be a tricky question. Obviously, John Doe is a Kasparov-man. It was not by choice, but the result is the same. Since we have Elo lists, we say : Kasparov is the strongest. (very small print: some say Fischer still is...:)) From time to time they pop up - the strongest, the best, you know, but it has more nuance than "which one is stronger?" . If we say SSDF rules, we should say: you can't compare, because they're not both in the list. At that time we resort to other measures, like playing style. 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.