Author: Uri Blass
Date: 06:08:54 12/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2002 at 08:17:37, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On December 09, 2002 at 07:27:51, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On December 09, 2002 at 06:44:55, Harald Faber wrote: >> >>>On December 09, 2002 at 05:15:08, Jouni Uski wrote: >>> >>>>To get REALLY improved top engine, I mean! >>>> >>>>According to SSDF Deep Fritz 7 is 14 points stronger than Fritz 7 (and probably >>>>Fritz 8 is very close) >>> >>> >>>IMO DF7 is more than 14pts stronger than F7. >>> >>> >>>>and Tiger 15 is 16 points over Tiger 14. Not so much. >>> >>> >>>Needs further testing. >>> >>> >>>>I quess, that Shredder 7 will have much more progress. >>> >>> >>>That is based on marketing placed by Sandro and Helmut. Simply a GUESS. Maybe >>>you should also try to GUESS how many former engines have also been announced to >>>be 50pts or more stronger than the predecessor and FAILED. > > >Pls. note: I DO NOT AND NEVER MADE MARKETING! > >>>Believe me, much more than one. Actually, as it seems, Tiger 15 falls into this >>>category. So calm down, wait and see whether Shredder 7 will really show an >>>improvement of 50pts. > >We have made a huge amount of games and based on those we can state that the >most reliable figure is 50 points. > >Pls. consider that the opening books have a huge no. of variations and depending >on them and the selection toward the opponents this can vary, THIS IS WHY I AM >TALKING ABOUT MOST RELIABLE GUESS! > >>> >>> >>>>Note, that Shredder 6 is 55 points over 5.32 and Paderborn version full 72 points. Do it Stefan! >>> >>> >>>Did you notice the difference between DeepFritz 7 K6-450 <-> A-1200 and Tiger 15 >>>K6-450 <-> A-1200? What do you say now? >> >>I do not know and I guess that tiger was simply unlucky on A1200 and lucky on >>K6-450(there is a statistical error) > >Yes, but I was talking about 45 points improvement. Pls. note program >improvements so no link with a specific hardware. Also the program may was a >little lucky with slow hardware so more or less this is the improvement. >Why Uri does not admit I was right rather than criticizing every time he think >he has the opportunity? It is not something that I have against you. I simply know from history that the estimates for shredder were too optimistic. > >Again I repeat that I do not care about real Elo improvements as my interest is >to improve my opening book and win the WCCC! > >> >> >>Note that the predictions were also better at the time of shredder6 >> >>Here is a link to the prediction >> >>http://ccc.it.ro/search/ccc.php?art_id=199339 > >Pls. remember that I was talking about 50 points improvement based on UCI >version; the one with my book, which was not tested by SSDF on A1200. > >> >>The prediction were at least 80 elo better for shredder6. >>The prediction was also for sandro's book but I understand that shredder >>passerborn is using that book. > >Yes, it does, but using the book made for Shredder 6.0, not for this different >version, so not fully optimized! I understand your explanation but I expect better engine with the same book to perform better. If shredder padderborn is weaker than shredder6 with the same book when your book is used then it seems that in some meaning it is weaker than shredder6. Uri
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.