Author: Chessfun
Date: 15:16:50 08/31/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 31, 2000 at 12:59:27, Christophe Theron wrote:
>On August 29, 2000 at 16:26:54, Marcus Kaestner wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>sorry uri, but this is wrong.
>>>>have you been at the last wcc´s?
>>>>i haven´t seen you.
>>>>
>>>>and as a member of the rebel team this year and shredder team last year, i know
>>>>what we have done and if i compare with chessbase then i know this is nothing.
>>>>
>>>>marcus
>>>
>>>Sorry, but you said that the reason that you expected chessbase not to win is
>>>also the fact that the operators of other programs can force luck better.
>>
>>yes, you have read very well and kept it in mind.
>>
>>>
>>>Based on ssdf games of shredder4 I believe that Shredder was not the best
>>>software+hardware in the last WCCC but you predicted that it is going to win and
>>>you were right.
>>
>>after the wcc, stefan did not worked on the engine for nearly one year!
>>the wcc was in june, and the ssdf came out end of the year or later.
>>but meanwhile the others have done very much!
>>so it was the best in june, but not the best in autumn.
>
>
>
>
>I tend to agree that Shredder 4 (Paderborn version) was probably the best
>program at that time. This is based on the data of the SSDF, which is the most
>reliable source we have.
>
>Tiger 11.9 (Paderborn version) was certainly 30 to 50 elo points weaker than
>Shredder 4.
>
>However, Tiger dramatically improved in the next 3 months after Paderborn. As a
>Result, Tiger 12.0 and Shredder 4 were very close, as the (hidden) data of the
>SSDF says.
>
>I don't know how Shredder 4.22 (London version) and Tiger 12.9 (London version)
>compare, but there is one thing I'm sure about: the next released version of
>Tiger (engine version 13.0, product name probably Rebel-Tiger II) will be
>clearly improved over the London version.
>
>Which says nothing about the relative strength of Rebel-Tiger II and Shredder 5,
>that's true.
>
>I just want to point out that there is time before the commercial releases of
>all the major products, and people should not believe that the engines are
>frozen by now.
>
>
>
> Christophe
Christophe,
Not that I am familiar with Tiger but I read here about
some of it's problems were the book was'nt made for Tiger.
Will there be book improvements in the new version? and why did'nt
Tiger run with it's standard book in the WMCC.
I did'nt comment in any of the threads on WMCC as it seemed to me
pretty pointless as everything about winning one tournament is known.
Any of the top could win next time, these programs will not be the released
versions, etc, etc. That isn't from me trying to take anything away
from Shredder, who I had picked myself to finish 2nd to Tiger in the
CSS swepestakes. I was just curious about this book question.
Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>The only logical reason for it is the fact that you knew that it does better
>>>opening preperation.
>>>
>>>Operators can force luck only by better choice of the opening.
>>
>>yes, as i did with tiger against nimzo.
>>
>>but the team is reasonable for the dangerous and safe book.
>>
>>there is a difference in preparation the book
>>and forcing luck in the games.
>>the influence of the operator can be very high. even with a tricky time setting.
>>
>>marcus
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.