Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 09:12:56 06/26/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2005 at 11:54:21, Peter Kappler wrote: >On June 26, 2005 at 11:41:24, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >>On June 26, 2005 at 10:56:19, Peter Kappler wrote: >> >>>On June 26, 2005 at 01:48:28, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>> >>>>On June 26, 2005 at 00:06:47, Peter Kappler wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 25, 2005 at 20:42:42, Steve Glanzfeld wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>[Event "4th Intl.CSVN"] >>>>>>[Site "Leiden NED"] >>>>>>[Date "2004.04.24"] >>>>>>[Round "5"] >>>>>>[White "Shredder"] >>>>>>[Black "Hydra"] >>>>>>[Result "1-0"] >>>>>>[ECO "B76"] >>>>>>[PlyCount "61"] >>>>>>[EventDate "2004.??.??"] >>>>>> >>>>>>1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. Be3 d6 7. f3 Nf6 8. Qd2 >>>>>>O-O 9. O-O-O Nxd4 10. Bxd4 Be6 11. Kb1 Qc7 12. h4 Rfc8 13. h5 Qa5 14. h6 Bh8 >>>>>>15. a3 Nd7 16. f4 Bxd4 17. Qxd4 Nf6 18. f5 gxf5 19. Nd5 Bxd5 20. exd5 Qc5 21. >>>>>>Qd3 Kh8 22. Qxf5 Rg8 23. Rh3 Qc8 24. Qf2 Qf8 25. Bd3 Rg5 26. Bf5 Qg8 27. g4 Qd8 >>>>>>28. Qe3 Rxg4 29. Bxg4 Nxg4 30. Qg5 Qg8 31. Qxe7 1-0 >>>>>> >>>>>>http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=87303 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Hydra recently won an 8-game match, 5.5-2.5 against Shredder. (A slower version >>>>>of Hydra than the one Adams is facing.) >>>> >>>>I have already posted several times that the experimental Shredder version that >>>>played against Hydra was heavely buggy (about 150 points weaker on long time >>>>controls), so it would have lost the match against any strong engine too. >>>> >>> >>>I must have missed these posts. Can you provide a few positions from the match >>>where the current Shredder 9 plays a different move from the experimental >>>version that lost to Hydra? >> >>One is more than enough: >> >>look game 6th when Shredder gave a piece for 2 pawns and lost the game. No >>Shredder commercial version would play that move at any level. >> >>Sandro >> > >You must be thinking of another game. Game 6 was a drawn rook and pawn ending. Sorry it was the last game we lost. Game 8th I think. > And I do think you need to give more than one example to support your claim. >If it was truly a 150-point bug, it should be easy to find several positions. By mistake part of the program was deleted. This bug could not be seen at blitz level and was effecting the game only at high depths. It was related to pieces exchange handling info, this is why it was not able to see deeper on tactical combination if involving pieces exchange and was giving away pawns without compensation in some positions. > >It is strange that Stefan makes no mention of such a serious bug in his >post-match report. Well, he was not pround to discover that, but you can ask him. I found this problem after the 2004 WCCC and he did not believed me as all he did to the program was improving something. Yes, but by mistake he removed part of the program. So, the same version got 2nd at the 2004 WCCC and I really don't know how that was possible...I guess a lot of luck. He found out what he did more than a month after the match was over testing the new preliminary versions and seeing our program loosing badly against our main competitors in our test matches...than he remembered my words and decided to check the whole program to find out what was wrong...to late to include that in the report. The only game we lost without bugs was the last game we played against Hydra. > >http://www.shredderchess.de/abudhabi.html > >-Peter Sandro > > > > >>> >>>-Peter >>> >>> >>>> >>>>This means that we cannot use this match to compare Shredder with Hydra. >>>> >>>> >>>>Sandro >>>>> >>>>>http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1875 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>-Peter
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.