Author: Mridul Muralidharan
Date: 14:04:18 04/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 30, 2004 at 10:51:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 30, 2004 at 09:25:57, Omid David Tabibi wrote: > >>>If Falcon cannot use parallel hardware then it is not bob's fault. >> >>I never tested Falcon versus Crafty on unequal hardware. All my tests and my >>conclusions are purely based on tests conducted on equal hardware, using one >>processor, and same book. >> >>In my post in this thread >>(http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?362197) I only mentioned the >>name "Crafty" in the following paragraph: >> >>"Crafty is a great engine, and it is free. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't >>be interested in other grandmaster-strength programs." >> >>And added that Shredder is stronger than other engines. If someone read that >>differently and jumped to interesting conclusions, it is surely not my problem. > > >Actually it is. You _specifically_ said that only Shredder is capable of >beating your program. That _specifically_ suggests that no other commercial >engine can do so. > >That was what I responded to... I didn't bring Crafty into the discussion. >Vincent did that in his usual "change the subject" form of discussion... Hmm , he mentioned that his program gets consistently beaten for > 50% only by shredder. That does not imply that for all other engines , falcon beats them > 50% For strong engines with decent timecontrols and an ok book (with not many sharp lines) - most games would end in draws. So I dont see anything per se wrong in his statement. Even if fritz cannot beat his program > 50% , it does not imply that fritz is weaker than falcon , the score could be 35% fritz wins , 15% falcon wins and 50% draws ! So is it possible that it is you who might have jumped into conclusions ?? Mridul
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.