Author: blass uri
Date: 10:50:49 03/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2000 at 12:24:55, Jorge Pichard wrote: >On March 06, 2000 at 01:18:05, blass uri wrote: > >>On March 05, 2000 at 18:09:29, Jorge Pichard wrote: >> >>>Most Programs perform excellent whenever there is a tactical position, but some >>>programs perform better tactically than strategically. A good comparison is >>>between Rebel 10 or Tiger Rebel, which are very good programs strategically >>>compare to Deep Junior or Junior 6.0.which is very good tactically. But when you >>>match them Deep Junior 6.0 is a little bit better than either of the previous >>>mentioned programs. >> >>Why do you think that Junior6 is better in tactical positions relative to >>TigerRebel? >> >>Junior6 searches more nodes per second but you cannot learn from it that it is >>better in tactics. >> >>I know that Rebeltiger did better results in enrique's test suite relative to >>Junior6. >>I know that most of the improvement from Junior5 to Junior6 was about the >>evaluation function. >> >>Uri >I am basing my oppinion on a small test between Junior 6.0 Vs Rebel Tiger 12e of >50 games in 60 minutes per side, using two identical AMD 800 Mhz and Junior 6.0 >won 28 games; probably the time control and speed of the computers used has a >lot to do with the result. It could be that Junior 6.0 calculate deeper than >Rebel Tiger 12e, providing faster processor and allowing a time control greater >than 60 minutes per side per game. > >Pichard It is also possible that Junior6 had a better evaluation. You cannot learn from the fact that Junior6 won that it calculated deeper. Uri
This page took 0.01 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.