Author: Uri Blass
Date: 06:58:13 12/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2002 at 09:27:49, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On December 09, 2002 at 09:08:54, Uri Blass wrote: > >>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. > >Well, it happens ones and you are repeting that all the time as a rule. Note >that when that happen I CLEARLY SAID THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING TOLD ME BY A TESTER >FRIEND OF MINE... >If who was selling Shredder did so, that has nothing to do with my claims. AM I >WRONG TO STATE THIS? > >Pls. say it once forever! > >> >>> >>>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. > >This is what I claimed: > >Shredder 6 (UCI as referred with my book; Shredder 7 will have my book on both >GUI, but this will be the first time). better about 80 points in total: > >40-50 points the engine and about 15-20 points the book and the rest the new >learning (again UCI GUI). > >Shredder Paderborn: about 15-20 points stronger (the engine). > >So now since the book was made for the 6.0 which it is REASONABLE that >Padderborn version was not optimized for the book as usually it is the other way >around! > >So my statements are turned out to be REALISTIC considering what above WHICH IS >OBVIOUS TO ME and should be to all if you think about it! > >Did I ever critized another program? No I did not. >Did I ever talked about other programs? No I did not. >Why do I give info on Shredder? Because being in the developing team I think it >is an enrichement for this forum to know things from the people that work on >them. When I was a customer I wanted this, but very seldom they were available. >Why other people, which work on top programs, do not appear on this forum? >Because there are too many people TOO READY TO CRITICIZE and made general >statement instead of trying to understand things. > >I hope I have been MORE than clear. I understand It seems based on the claim that your book was good for shredder6 and not good for shredder padderborn that these programs are completely different and there is a significant change that is productive in part of the cases and counter productive in another part of the cases(otherwise a book that is good for shredder6 should be also good for shredderpadderborn). Uri
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.