Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 18:01:06 08/31/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 31, 2000 at 18:16:50, Chessfun wrote:
>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?
Yes, Jeroen is still working on it.
> and why did'nt
>Tiger run with it's standard book in the WMCC.
Tiger used the new book from Jeroen, which is going to be improved.
The problem with the book of Tiger in the WMCCC2000 is mainly that I had not
provided the right tools to allow the operator to modify the book during the
tournament. There were several "preference" books prepared by Jeroen, which were
supposed to guide the program into positions that favour it. Unfortunately after
the game against Shredder and the opening choice accident that happened in this
game, it turned out that it was possible to have the problem again with the
other preference books as well.
Ed informed me just after the game and asked me and Jeroen to provide what was
needed to change the books. That's what we did, but Ed had no Internet access in
London and he has not been able to download the tools.
So Marcus and Ed, when faced with the problem of the opening choice for Tiger,
had a serious handicap and had to find tricky solutions without the opening book
tools.
Against some opponents they have been able to use Jeroen's preparations, but
against others (Nimzo for example) they had to invent an incredibly tricky
solution.
My fault. I fear I do not have enough experience with these events and book
preparation in general.
Christophe
>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 0.01 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.