Author: James T. Walker
Date: 04:43:00 01/26/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2006 at 07:18:00, Uri Blass wrote: >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 Nonsense
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.