Author: stuart taylor
Date: 10:45:52 05/16/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2005 at 13:26:40, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 16, 2005 at 13:06:16, stuart taylor wrote: > >>On May 15, 2005 at 16:04:25, gerold daniels wrote: >> >>>On May 15, 2005 at 11:25:12, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On May 15, 2005 at 10:44:49, stuart taylor wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 15, 2005 at 09:13:24, Klaus Wlotzka wrote: >>>>> >>>>>How can this be? Is this really true? What's the catch? >>>>>Maybe we are speaking only of Blitz? Maybe some other top engines were absent? >>>>>Or what? >>>>>S.Taylor >>>> >>>>Time control is 10 minutes per game+10 seconds per move and the hardware is >>>>more than twice faster than ssdf hardware. >>>> >>>>It seems to be about 3 times faster time control than the ssdf games. >>>> >>>>I do not know the rating of Shredder9 at 120/40 and I cannot say that it is >>>>impossible that it is also 100 elo better at 120/40 time control. >>>> >>>>The fact that it had problems against Junior proves nothing because a program >>>>may have problems against one opponent. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>good afternoon Uri. Sedat has shredder 9 104 points above junior 9 in his latest >>>tourney. 60 min.10 sec. >>> >>>gerold. >> >>THAT wasn't being disputed! >>An actual match between the two is hard for Shredder 9. (Even though Shredder >>7.04 crushes Junior 9). >>S.Taylor > >The results of the ssdf do not prove that Shredder7.04 does better against >Junior reltive to Shredder9. >The main problem is that a match is not undependent games. > >I did not analyze what happened. >The problem is that it is possible that shredder7.04 was lucky to find some >weakness in Junior in the first games and also found weakness in the learning of >Junior so it could beat Junior easily when Shredder9 may be unlucky. > >Without looking at the game and understanding why Shredder7.04 did better you >can say nothing. > > >Here is a possible explanation(I did not look at the games and did not try to >analyze the reason for the better result of Shredder7.04): > > >It is possible that shredder9 started with 1.f4 in the first game with white and >lost so it never repeated 1.f4 >It is possible that the reason was some line that Junior play normally with >probability of 1%. >It is possible that Shredder7.04 started with 9 wins in with 1.f4 and one >loss(in the same line that Shredder9 also lost) and the single loss did not >convince shredder7.04 to avoid 1.f4 and it simply chose a different line with >1.f4 but a different move later. > >Uri I looked very carefully, not at the games themselves, but at many sets of games between the two (or three!), and many different testings in different formats, which have been posted ever since Junior 9 came out. You will find this ro be ALWAYS (or practically always) the case. I asked many times how this is, and I never got answers, except perhaps the usual stuff....."not enough games". I think most people ignored this interesting fact. S.Taylor
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.