Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 08:59:01 04/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
>Posted by Bertil Eklund on April 16, 2001 at 11:00:46: >>>- We invited 4 programs: DB and the Deeps of Fritz, Shredder and Junior. >>>"We" is BGN and Enrique Irazoqui, with Bertil Eklund as consultant. >> >>A very nice couple. Both of them just recently called me a hypocrite >>in the CSS forum. My sin: reporting the Odyssey tournament. Reason: >>they dislike Thorsten Czub the organizer of Odyssey. > >Are you sure you will bring this up again? Your support of a man that time after >time lies about Enrique, Djordje and SSDF to name a few. He has several times >accused us for being paid, taking bribes and other horrible things. >And your answer: "I know nothing". I can take that but I believe that the main >reason that mr Irazoqui don't post here anymore isn't Thorsten's accusations but >instead that you support mr Czub. As far as I remember there was a lot of heavy >criticism in the CSS-Forum against your promotion of the Odysse-tournament and >mr Czub. No I haven't said that mr Czub manipulates the results. I have never said, "I know nothing". The only thing I said, show me that Thorsten cheats (as stated in the CSS forum) and I will terminate Odyssey immediately. Thereafter the silence was deafening, well except for you and Enrique who have made your point very clear. >>Why do you mention this Ed? >> >>Because I am in this business too long. Personal dislikes have become >>the keyword expelling Rebel and Tiger. > >Absolutely ridicoulous! I have said several times that my favourite program is >Tiger/Gambit. I have also said that I'm really sorry that there are no >SMP-Tigers available. I truly believe that 8xDeep Shreeder or Fritz is much >better then Tiger on one cpu. I have also said that I'm truly sorry for mr >Theron that his excellent program can't compare under the given conditions. As >far as I know, I think he agrees with that. As far as I remember, the only >criticism from me against Shredder was that I found it to be weaker then >Shredder4 in blitz at least on a slow (450) machine. I have said that I'm really >impressed with Shredders positional play and of course the excellent endgame. I >also mentioned the excellent auto-player in Shredder4/5. The only thing that matters here is that if you want to play a play-off you can not exclude programs on beforehand. IMO if there was no play-off than Shredder is the logical candidate with the most rights. But since you have decided to have a play-off you should invite more programs. You have declared SMP holy but you do not realize that to make a good SMP chess program you need to rewrite major parts of a chess program from scratch. Before you have a reliable multi-processor chess program it will cost you a full year. Why else do you think that nowadays SMP programs do NOT dominate? I have posted the Paderborn and Ausfess examples, see below. In fact I have not seen ANY tournament victory by a multi-processor program. The reason is obvious, a SMP program takes time, ask Bob, Bruce. You CAN NOT say I EXPECT Anand to be the best player to challenge the world champion, this is just a debatable opinion. Therefore we have the candidate matches to proof strength even if your name is Anand. Others have chances too, that is the way things should go. You just ASSUME a multi-processor system is stronger, but you have no proof of that and based on your theory you EXCLUDE others. Again... In no way it is proven that a multi-processor program is doing better than a single-processor program. Just look at the latest Ausfess tournament Tiger 13.0 (not 14.0) topping above all the multi-processing entries: =============================================== Tournament : Aufseß 2001 Date : 13/03 to 17/03 Type : 9 rounds Swiss Time control : 3h/all 1. Chess-Tiger 13.0 Athlon 1,3 GHz 6.5 46.5 31.75 2. Hiarcs 7.32 Athlon 800 6.5 46.0 32.75 3. CM 6555 Athlon 1,2 GHz 6.0 45.5 29.00 4. SOS 11/2000 Athlon 800 5.5 44.5 26.25 5. Deep Fritz 2x P3 1 GHz 5.5 43.5 26.00 6. Gandalf 4.32h Athlon 1,2 GHz 5.5 36.5 20.25 7. Hiarcs 7.01 Athlon 1,0 5.0 45.0 24.00 8. Gambit-Tiger 1.0 P3-840 5.0 44.0 22.25 9. Shredder5 Erbsenzähler P3-1000 5.0 41.5 20.25 10. Deep Shredder 2x P3-935 5.0 41.0 20.25 11. Deep Junior 2x Athlon 1Ghz 5.0 40.5 18.50 12. Century 3.0 P3-866 4.5 45.5 21.25 13. Junior 6 Athlon 1,2 GHz 4.5 38.5 16.75 14. Triple-Brain 2 x Celeron 500 4.0 36.5 13.25 15. Shredder 5 Athlon 1,2 GHz 4.0 36.0 13.00 16. Fritz 6 P2-400 3.5 44.5 16.00 17. The King 2.54 P4-1300 3.5 38.0 14.25 18. Genius 6,5 P3-800 3.5 36.5 12.00 19. Nimzo 8 Athlon 1 GHz 3.0 36.0 10.75 20. Goliath Light Exp. Athlon 1,2 3.0 35.0 10.25 21. M- Chess 7.1 P3-500 2.5 35.0 8.25 22. CM 8000 Athlon 1,2 GHz 2.5 35.0 8.00 ==================================== Chess Tiger 13, Hiarcs 7.32, ChessMaster, SOS all before multi-processor programs. Then: http://www.rebel.nl/r11-resu.htm Have you read it? For once have a look at this complete victory list and tell me which program has won so much tournaments? Answer: ONLY Chess Tiger! And you want to expel this program??? Another example is Paderborn 1999 the world championship all classes Shredder winning the tournament on a poor Pentium 550 above all the multi-processor entries: . Junior 4 x 500 Mhz . Fritz 4 x 500 Mhz . Ferret 4 x 400 Mhz . Cilkchess 240 x Alpha at 250 Mhz . P.ConNerS 186 x PII 450 Mhz . Zugzwang 512 x Alpha at 300 Mhz No domination seen, it does not exist. Let them proof it, it is just normal. Ed
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.