Author: Sune Larsson
Date: 05:28:47 09/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 31, 2000 at 21:01:06, Christophe Theron wrote: >On August 31, 2000 at 18:16:50, Chessfun wrote: > >>On August 31, 2000 at 12:59:27, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On August 29, 2000 at 16:26:54, Marcus Kaestner wrote: >>> >>>>>> >>>>>>sorry uri, but this is wrong. >>>>>>have you been at the last wcc´s? >>>>>>i haven´t seen you. >>>>>> >>>>>>and as a member of the rebel team this year and shredder team last year, i know >>>>>>what we have done and if i compare with chessbase then i know this is nothing. >>>>>> >>>>>>marcus >>>>> >>>>>Sorry, but you said that the reason that you expected chessbase not to win is >>>>>also the fact that the operators of other programs can force luck better. >>>> >>>>yes, you have read very well and kept it in mind. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Based on ssdf games of shredder4 I believe that Shredder was not the best >>>>>software+hardware in the last WCCC but you predicted that it is going to win and >>>>>you were right. >>>> >>>>after the wcc, stefan did not worked on the engine for nearly one year! >>>>the wcc was in june, and the ssdf came out end of the year or later. >>>>but meanwhile the others have done very much! >>>>so it was the best in june, but not the best in autumn. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>I tend to agree that Shredder 4 (Paderborn version) was probably the best >>>program at that time. This is based on the data of the SSDF, which is the most >>>reliable source we have. >>> >>>Tiger 11.9 (Paderborn version) was certainly 30 to 50 elo points weaker than >>>Shredder 4. >>> >>>However, Tiger dramatically improved in the next 3 months after Paderborn. As a >>>Result, Tiger 12.0 and Shredder 4 were very close, as the (hidden) data of the >>>SSDF says. >>> >>>I don't know how Shredder 4.22 (London version) and Tiger 12.9 (London version) >>>compare, but there is one thing I'm sure about: the next released version of >>>Tiger (engine version 13.0, product name probably Rebel-Tiger II) will be >>>clearly improved over the London version. >>> >>>Which says nothing about the relative strength of Rebel-Tiger II and Shredder 5, >>>that's true. >>> >>>I just want to point out that there is time before the commercial releases of >>>all the major products, and people should not believe that the engines are >>>frozen by now. >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >>Christophe, >> Not that I am familiar with Tiger but I read here about >>some of it's problems were the book was'nt made for Tiger. >> >>Will there be book improvements in the new version? > > > >Yes, Jeroen is still working on it. > > > > >> and why did'nt >>Tiger run with it's standard book in the WMCC. > > > >Tiger used the new book from Jeroen, which is going to be improved. Sorry about my ignorance, but this Jeroen - is it van Dorp or Noomen? Could have some importance for a possible purchase. At least I know that the first mentioned Jeroen, has proven a high level of playingstrength by finishing second in a very strong tournament on the net. :-) Thanks (for a good program) > >The problem with the book of Tiger in the WMCCC2000 is mainly that I had not >provided the right tools to allow the operator to modify the book during the >tournament. There were several "preference" books prepared by Jeroen, which were >supposed to guide the program into positions that favour it. Unfortunately after >the game against Shredder and the opening choice accident that happened in this >game, it turned out that it was possible to have the problem again with the >other preference books as well. > >Ed informed me just after the game and asked me and Jeroen to provide what was >needed to change the books. That's what we did, but Ed had no Internet access in >London and he has not been able to download the tools. > >So Marcus and Ed, when faced with the problem of the opening choice for Tiger, >had a serious handicap and had to find tricky solutions without the opening book >tools. > >Against some opponents they have been able to use Jeroen's preparations, but >against others (Nimzo for example) they had to invent an incredibly tricky >solution. > >My fault. I fear I do not have enough experience with these events and book >preparation in general. > > > > Christophe > > > > >>I did'nt comment in any of the threads on WMCC as it seemed to me >>pretty pointless as everything about winning one tournament is known. >>Any of the top could win next time, these programs will not be the released >>versions, etc, etc. That isn't from me trying to take anything away >>from Shredder, who I had picked myself to finish 2nd to Tiger in the >>CSS swepestakes. I was just curious about this book question. >> >>Thanks. >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>The only logical reason for it is the fact that you knew that it does better >>>>>opening preperation. >>>>> >>>>>Operators can force luck only by better choice of the opening. >>>> >>>>yes, as i did with tiger against nimzo. >>>> >>>>but the team is reasonable for the dangerous and safe book. >>>> >>>>there is a difference in preparation the book >>>>and forcing luck in the games. >>>>the influence of the operator can be very high. even with a tricky time setting. >>>> >>>>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.