Author: Thomas Lagershausen
Date: 04:52:03 01/20/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2006 at 07:46:21, Günther Simon wrote: >On January 20, 2006 at 06:42:42, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On January 20, 2006 at 06:32:48, Günther Simon wrote: >> >>>On January 20, 2006 at 06:04:57, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On January 20, 2006 at 05:51:32, Martin Andersen2 wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 20, 2006 at 05:28:47, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>I question that Rybka is already proven the strongest engine today. Then people >>>>>>tell me to look at CEGT where that has been proven... This was a few days ago >>>>>>here in CCC. I must object to such sort of hybris. The truth is that we dont >>>>>>have statistical methods for making such claims. Even after 700 or maybe over >>>>>>1000 games the significance is not so sure and if you look at the +/- boundaries >>>>>>of the so called Elo results then you still have overlappings and you cant say >>>>>>that Rybka is the clear first. >>>>> >>>>>Rybka 1.0 beta 64 bit 2859 +-21 >>>>>Deep shredder 9 2CPU 2804 +-17 >>>>> >>>>>So Rybka's number 1 spot cannot be touched. You are wrong. >>>>> >>>>>Martin. >>>> >>>> >>>>1 Rybka 1.01 Beta 9 64-bit opt 2921 73 68 71 80.3 % 2677 33.8 % >>>>2 Rybka 1.0 Beta 64-bit 2859 21 21 765 68.4 % 2725 32.7 % >>>>3 Deep Shredder 9.12 x64 2CPU 2844 45 45 168 64.6 % 2740 30.4 % >>> >>> >>>Also apples and oranges... You show 1CPU vs. 2CPUs >>>scroll a bit down to find an appropriate Shredder for real comparison >>> >>>...snip babbling... >> >> >>Please just try to behave. Otherwise you wont last very long here in CCC. In the > >I would say silly threats are bad behaviour. Forget it you are >still just a troll(proofs in the net for 10 years) after all and all know it... >Running out of arguments? It is clear that the one who will not last >long here is much more likely the Tueschen case. > >>meantime look also here into the ratings of Kurt Utzinger: >> >>1 Rybka 1.0 Beta 32-bit 2620 20 25 700 67.0 2497 30.0 % >>2 Toga II 1.1 2595 23 24 600 61.8 2512 33.3 % >>3 Fruit 2.2.1 2591 18 20 1010 62.8 2500 29.2 % >>4 Fritz 9 2589 19 21 880 62.2 2503 28.0 % >> >>Also here you can see the same. > >What? What is the same? Haven't you been proven wrong already with >interpreting CEGT stats, which provides much more value, because >of superior game numbers? Strange answer... > >>Of course Rybka is leading (probably for the >>given reasons of its daily updates) but the differences are NOT significant. It >>is all about the power of stats and NOT my personal beliefs or my prejudices, as >>you want to propagate. Next time you repeat such nonsense I'll contact the mod. > >I contact the mods, because you always write nonsense in CCC and it is clear >_YOU have_ an agenda with Rybka. period. >You couldn't even read the simple 2CPUs vs. 1CPU. > >G. I absolutly agree.It is a campaigne with the simple method by ignoring important informations. I gave enough examples in this thread. TL
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.