Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:18:00 01/26/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2006 at 02:49:45, Joseph Ciarrochi wrote: >I too would like to see such postings. I have been having some trouble >demonstrating improvement at the 40/4 time control, though I need another week >of constant testing to really make any conclusions. I'd like to know if it has >improved too, especially at longer time controls? > >here are the preliminary tournment results using noomen test set. > >Round 84 > >rybka beta 12 default 55.5 (but 6-11 against fritz9) >frita 9 54 >fruit 2.2.1 44.5 (main difference between f9 and fruit is fruit does > poorly against rybka) >toga II.1 36 >spike 1.0a 33 >ruffian 2.1 29 > > >so the engines are ranked is in the order you would expect, but rybka 9 isn't >that much better than fritz9 yet. I am sure bigger differences will emerge over >time, but will it be better than 48 point advantage rybka beta 1 already had >over fritz 9? (http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/eloblitzall.html). I don't know. I think that it is a bad comparison because the CEGT use different positions and not the noomen test. The only good way to compare is if the same computer and the same positions are used for the first version and the last version. 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.