Author: Micheal Cummings
Date: 06:06:36 05/27/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 27, 1999 at 08:49:12, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: > >On May 26, 1999 at 22:34:19, Micheal Cummings wrote: > >> >>On May 26, 1999 at 21:08:55, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: >> >>> >>>Hi Francis, >>> >>>The position you presented along with the results only further clouds the issue. >>>Rebel 10 did well on the test; however, my rebel 10 played Rxb7 on the 26th move >>>against GM Rohde. Hiarcs 7 correctly played Bg2. Both were set at 40/2. Now, >>>where does that leave us? Also, if you remember that position I presented, Rebel >>>10 played Bxb2+ while Hiarcs 7 played Bh2+. So, it appears that test positions >>>of this sort will yield inconclusive evidence. >>> >>>Further...does that test mean Chessmaster 6000 is superior to Hiarcs 7? >>> >>>Regards, >>>Mel >> >>I have found that in Analysis, CM6K finds most positions faster than the rest. >>And as for superior, well more games need to be played. But as you would notice >>on the SSDF, CM6K is currently No1 !!!!!! > >Yes, it is true Chessmaster 6000 is number 1, although it's really tied with >fritz 5.32, but CM 6000 has played against WEAKER opponents in the SSDF testing. >Don't you agree that testing against weaker opponents allows the buildup of >points unfair to other programs playing against stronger opponents? > >Mel But if you look at the percentage of CM wins against the weaker opponents, it had the highest percentage than the rest. So it beat the weaker opponents more than the rest. And from what I have been told from the SSDF it is fair. It has also beaten the top programs, we have had many games posted on here showing this
This page took 0.01 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.