Author: pavel
Date: 07:57:10 09/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 24, 2000 at 10:32:27, Harald Faber wrote: >On September 24, 2000 at 10:18:26, pavel wrote: > >>On September 24, 2000 at 02:26:26, Harald Faber wrote: >> >>>Hi all, >>>sorry for not posting frequently but my time is limited... >>>Besides some improvements in the GUI one expected a stronger engine for the new >>>Tiger. You can imagine how astonishe I was when I played several games with the >>>new Tiger/K7-500 against Shredder4/K6-200 (g/120) and Shredder led by 4.5-2.5 >>>after 7 games. Although I know how strong Shredder is even on tha slow >>>200MHz-machine, but this result was unbelievable. >> >>it is not unbelievable, shredder 4 is still strong enough to be a threat to any >>chess program in the world. > > >No doubt, but on a much slower hardware (2.3x-2.6x) it is VERY unlikely that >Shredder could have a chance to win even such a short match. > > >> I was not sure if this was due >>>to strange engine progress or due to the book. Because of some trouble getting >>>the London-book started, in these 7 games the "original", small book was used. >>>After these 7 games I stoped that match, I have seen enough. I managed to get >>>the London-book to work finally successful. I started the match again, and what >>>I say is just WOW! I have stopped the match at a standing of 5-0 for Tiger! >>>Not even Tiger 12e crushed Shredder that clear. And look at the games, there are >>>wins in the endgame although Shredder is said to be very strong in there and had >>>access to all 5-man TBs! >>> >>>See the games below and enjoy! >>>(And get eager for the new Tiger :-)) >> >>yes and also get eager for the new shredder.... > > >Be sure I'll get the new Shredder and CM8000 too. :) > > >>your 'experiment' proves only one thing. that is, tiger won only because of its >>better book, since according to you tiger played much better when book has been >>changed. > > >Don't forget that the book counts to the program as well as the engine does. >The book I used first was certainly a 2nd-class-one coming with the >LChess-engine. >And if you take a look at the games you will see that Tiger did not win the >games because of winning lines out of the book, no way. > > >>also note that shredder is one of those programs which plays *significantly* >>better with faster processors, ( I think I read that several times somewhere in >>this forum). In same hardware things could be differant. > > >I didn't say that Tiger crushed Shredder on same hardware. >However, it is not common that Shredder4 got crushed by 5-0 on my 200MHz >machine. Shredder always managed to hold matches even, but surprisingly not this >time. a good way to find out is reverse opening, and reverse processors.... you might wanna do the test yourself, it should be interesting :) Pavel >That 5-0 makes me say WOW! >Tiger and no other program can do better than winning X - 0. > > >>then ofcourse there is this question of not having enough games.... >>thats why we have something called "SSDF" ...:)) >>Pavel > > >I am not SSDF, SSDF will test Tiger2 in the future, but not now. And >beta-testing is not restricted neither wished to only play auto232-games in an >amount SSDF does, that would be something Ed and Christophe could do on their >own. >My and other Tiger-2-results just give an impression, statistical value will >come later by SSDF.
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.