Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:25:56 01/17/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 17, 2006 at 14:13:48, James T. Walker wrote: >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 Do you use a book for rybka in your tests. 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.