Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 08:57:56 02/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 01, 2000 at 11:06:30, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>On February 01, 2000 at 00:43:26, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On January 31, 2000 at 02:24:16, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>>
>>>On January 30, 2000 at 21:39:16, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>
>>>>So all that is needed is that the SSDF guys drop Chess Tiger DOS and start
>>>>testing the Rebel-Tiger instead.
>>>>
>>>>I cannot be sure the Rebel-Tiger would be on top again, but I am sure it plays
>>>>significantly better. So...
>>>
>>>This is exactly what I thought would happen, even though you previously said
>>>that SSDF could start testing with Chess Tiger DOS because things wouldn't
>>>change for Rebel-Tiger's release. You really should take credit when it is your
>>>due, Christophe! ;)
>>>
>>>Dave
>>
>>
>>Come on, didn't you follow what happened?
>
>Yes, I did.
>
>>Rebel-Tiger, commercial version, is by default EXACTLY the same engine than the
>>DOS engine that has been tested by the SSDF, with the only exception, that has
>>been checked by the SSDF and mentionned in their comments, that it computes
>>somewhat faster (about 8%). The difference only comes from the compiler used to
>>build the commercial engine, it is not a matter of optimized code.
>>
>>But while the engine was tested by the SSDF, I was still working to improve it
>>(I had less than one month to do that). As I wanted to keep my promise that the
>>commercial version would play exactly like the version tested by the SSDF, the
>>improvements have been included in the commercial version but they are not
>>activated by default. I wasn't even sure when the master CD went to duplication
>>that these new settings were better or not!
>
>I think it is good that you kept your promise.
>
>>The engine has been "frozen" by the end of November, so I had enough time since
>>that to check if the new settings are really better or not.
>>
>>They DO improve the program's strength. So now there are 4 good reasons for the
>>SSDF to test the commercial product:
>>
>>* it is somewhat faster
>>* it can use bigger hash tables
>>* it has improved algorithms
>>* there will be soon an opening book patch
>>
>>I don't feel like I have betrayed anybody. I have kept my promise to the SSDF,
>>and my customers do get the latest and best engine I have produced.
>>
>>What do you say about Fritz6 followed several weeks after by Fritz6a, and
>>Junior6 followed by Junior6a?
>
>I think they shouldn't be tested separately either, and my understanding is that
>they won't be. Doesn't your original statement imply that there should be a
>separate entry for Rebel-Tiger than for Chess-Tiger on the SSDF list? That is
>certainly how it reads to me.
Yes, that's what I mean.
Rebel-Tiger with the new improved setting is, I estimate, 20-25 elo points
stronger than Tiger 12.0 DOS.
If the SSDF melts the results of Tiger 12.0 DOS and RT+new_settings, we are not
going to see much change in strength until they play more than 400 games with
it.
But it happens that these 20-25 points is the difference that has been measured
between Tiger 12.0 DOS and our new #1, Junior 6. So this strength difference is
of significant importance.
I don't see why asking to test them separately is so wild. Look at the SSDF
list, you'll see that several programs of almost equal version have been tested
as separate entities: Hiarcs 7 and Hiarcs 7.32, Nimzo 99 and Nimzo 7.32 for
example.
Christophe
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.