Author: James T. Walker
Date: 11:13:48 01/17/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 16, 2006 at 22:18:00, James C. Logan wrote: >On January 16, 2006 at 20:04:37, Joseph Ciarrochi wrote: > >>I just finished some testing between the betas. It was 4 min with 2 sec >>increments on a decent pentium. Nooman test set. Default paremeters. All games >>were versus fritz9. There seems to be no significant differences, but it is >>critical to not infer too much, given n size is still small and this was against >>only one engine. >> >>best >>Joseph >> >> >> >>Rybka beta 1 58-42 >>Rybka 9b 59.5-40.5 >>rybka 10d 56 - 44 > >Interesting - my feeling is that 10d is slightly weaker against Fritz 9 than >Beta 1 was, and that it is a bit stronger against Fruit 2.2.1. I have a database >(Chessbase format) with 47 games Rybka 10 vs. F9, and 100 games Rybka 10d vs. >Fruit 2.2.1. All games at time controls 4'/40+4'/40/+4'. Rybka 10 and 10d with >defaults except using adaptive mode. F9 and Fruit using their own books, Rybka >using Perfect 8.32. > >Scores - +15/-14/=18 vs. F9 , +37/-23/=40 vs. Fruit 2.2.1 > >I will email the .cbv to anyone who wants it. My first impressions of 10d was that it was no better than the rest. Now after about 350 blitz games it is leading all other Betas by at least 30 Elo in my "Rybka only" database. It's all the Rybka versions vs Fritz 8/Shredder 9UCI/Fruit 2.2.1/Toga II 1.1/Junior 9 and Chess Tiger 2004. The games are all with ponder on and each program has it's own cpu. This program looks very strong to me. Jim
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.