Author: Detlef Pordzik
Date: 11:46:29 08/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 27, 2000 at 14:24:56, Bertil Eklund wrote: >On August 27, 2000 at 09:49:28, Detlef Pordzik wrote: > >>On August 27, 2000 at 02:15:27, Sandro Necchi wrote: >> >>>Yes, I am and the book is 2 years later than M-Chess one. This means that there >>>are 2 more years work improvements behind it! >>> >>>Of course I had to change a lot to make it suitable to the new program, but >>>overall results seems to indicate that when the new Shredder 5.0 will be >>>available with my book it should be rated about 80 points higher than Fritz 6a. >>> >>>Maybe more, but it is very difficult to know the correct Elo in advance. But >>>this gives you the figure of the improvements we have made. This is why we >>>believed we have very good chances to win the championship. Of course one needs >>>luck also, not only a good program! >>> >>>Sandro >> >>I am not so sure if I interpret all this correct, maybe it's just a wrong >>intention or assumption of mine. >>I sure do credit and respect your work and professionalism from your time >>together with Marty way back when. >>But I don't think this gives you the right to critisize and disrespect, what you >>can't measure nor have any insights. >>Until Sh3 the book was made by SMK himself - for the Sh 4 I was engaged by >>Millenium to create an entirely new book for the prog, right from the scratch. >> >>May I draw your attention towards the fact, that this 132 Megs book had it's >>reasonable share for the disguised rating on SSDF, scored extremely well vs the >>at that time state-of-the art competitors ? >>Nobody is perfect, for sure, and I would have needed 2 more years at least to >>tighten it up, but we couldn't agree on a continue. >>Yet, all preferences had to be done + set by hand/manually -as you should know, >>and these preferences are MY understanding of the way, this product should play. >>Which turned out to be not that failiure, as evidence gave proof. >> >>So, I wish you all the very best for the future of your cooking, and I mean it. >>But I think you really should stick it to measure, balance, critisize and >>whatsoever more of the job of your comrades in this very particular, small >>secenery of book cookers. >> >>Pleasant sunday, Sandro >> >>ELVIS > >Hi! > >Yes "your book" in Shredder4 plays in the same "league" as mr Noomens and mr >Kures books. I especially likes its good variation. But what do you mean with >"it had it's reasonable share for the disguised rating"? > >Bertil Well - easy to explain - and I think you should know it anyway. By reasons we really shouldn't repeat again - at least not from my point of view - the prog wasn't rated / listed officially. Nevertheless, as you stated yourself, it got tested by using a whatsoever number - 123 or so - and reached rank 3 - inofficially; if I remember all this correct. So, what I had in mind explaining to Sandro, was the aspect, that this very book of mine - as a basic part of the product Shredder IV, was able to compete quite reasonable within the extensive test rows vs the other main competitors, and therefore it couldn't be that sort of 2nd choiced in the end. But all clouds between him n' me have vanished anyway, by now. I hope this answered the question or prevented a missinterpretation. Thanx for the polite words for my work - maybe you'll see "me" again - you never can tell. Greets ELVIS
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.