Author: Chessfun
Date: 09:06:54 02/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 01, 2000 at 11:57:56, Christophe Theron wrote: >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. This is the same for other programs. Hiarcs had a patch in Oct and no new testing and separation of results was done. This also gets back to a point I tried to make before testing of Tiger, that it was logical to only test the released version. > >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. It should also be noted that Junior 6a's rating 1st, includes games from the weaker Junior 6. In the case of it's loss to Fritz 5.32 the majority of games were J6. I have not seen a breakdown yet it is likely that the majority were prior to the upgrade. >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. If that be the case then they must also re-test. Junior 6a since as stated above it's results include Junior 6's. Then maybe they should also re-test Hiarcs 7.32 with it's book improvement of Oct and seperate it's results based no the Oct patch.........where does it end?. Also all those programs you named were sold as individual entities and as such IMHO deserved separate listings. Thanks. > > > 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.