Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 04:29:13 11/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 09, 2000 at 04:20:41, pavel wrote: >On November 09, 2000 at 04:08:33, Uri Blass wrote: > >>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 > > >its probably clear to the sense what marcus "wanted to say", >but it is, in no way, clear that "shredder5 is far from #1" or "chess tiger is >better than shredder5" >even if I believe in what you say, chesstiger still has to be +100elo better >than the previous version in "longer time control". >But again with all "ifs" and "buts" aside, I agree with you that the only way to >find out is to make SSDF play these fine engines. >and really dont rely much on marcus's list... > >pavs After what I have seen in my own games and testing, Fritz 6a/b, Shredder 4.22, Tiger 13.0 and Gambit 1.0 are roughly equal in strength, say +- 20 points at slow time controls. Any claims about a new program being 100 points stronger than F6a/b, which in some cases means 170 over the prior version of the same program, doesn't deserve any credibility. Enrique
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.