Author: Jason Williamson
Date: 13:20:12 04/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 16, 2001 at 11:59:01, Ed Schröder wrote: >>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 Of course, there was one recent tournament where a SMP program one: ICC CCT1 <-- Ahead of Deep Junior, Shredder 3(I think it was 3) and others.
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.