Author: Uri Blass
Date: 01:08:33 11/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 09, 2000 at 03:58:47, pavel wrote: >On November 09, 2000 at 00:56:15, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On November 08, 2000 at 23:39:25, pavel wrote: >> >>>On November 08, 2000 at 17:34:00, Marcus Kaestner wrote: >>> >>>>On November 08, 2000 at 07:59:09, walter irvin wrote: >>>> >>>>>shredder 5 is not the best program , that would be deep shredder,followed by >>>>>deep junior.a multi proccessor program is going to be the best. >>>> >>>>not at all. >>>>in the chessbits-tournament rating list is deep junior (though on double-fast >>>>hardware) not the first. see: >>>> >>>>shredder x 2717 (40 games) >>>>century 3 beta 2656 (26 games) >>>>tiger 11.9 2624 (12 games) >>>>shredder 4s(chessbits-style) 2620 (28 games) >>>>deep junior 6 2616 (130 games) >>>>tiger 12 (new style) 2612 (31 games) >>>>fritz 6 2600 (231 games) >>>>tiger 12 2582 (120 games) >>>>shredder 4 2581 (221 games) >>>> >>>>even there are not enough games for some programs you can see, that deep junior >>>>hardly is the best. >>>> >>>>but i admit, that a dual-shredder 5 would have the best chances to become number >>>>1. >>>> >>>>marcus >>> >>> I dont get this. >>> >>>In your earlier posts you said something like "shredder5 is far from being the >>>best", >>>this is based on the fact, according to you, that you have shredder5. >>>but, in your tests shredder5 clearly seems to be more than 100elo better than >>>fritz6, and well ahead of others. (that is if you believe your test results). >>> >>>i am kinda confused, do you mind clearing it up? >>> >>>thanks >>>pavs. >> >>It is very clear. >>Tiger13 and gambittiger are not in this list and Marcus claimed that they are >>not worse than shredder5. >> >>Uri > >even if I consider that, ( and also rely on this list) tiger 13 has to be more >than 100 elo better than previous version (tiger12) to be better than shredder5, >I "seriously" doubt that. >Not to mention I believe (not sure) I have seen it stated in the rebel webpage >that the latest version is 40-50elo better than the previous one. and gambit >tiger is supposed to be on the same leage. > >so still it's not clear.... (as to what he meant) > >pavel It is clear to me. I read at the rebel site that tiger13 and gambittiger are only 50-70 elo better. The results that I see suuport this and I asked marcus about it. He replied that tiger13 is really only 50-70 elo better at short time control but the improvement is clearly bigger at longer time control. He claims that the new tiger earns more from time than the old tiger. We need to wait to the ssdf to see if he is right about it. 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.