Author: stuart taylor
Date: 18:46:07 11/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 2000 at 12:13:07, Christophe Theron wrote: >On November 19, 2000 at 10:14:46, stuart taylor wrote: > >>On November 18, 2000 at 20:00:14, Aloisio Ponti Lopes wrote: >> >>>Thüringen Mohlsdorf 2000 >>> >>>Junior 6.0 Athlon 1000 +1 -1 +1 +0 -1 1 5.0/6 >>>Deep Fritz 2x P3-866 -½ +1 +1 -1 +½ r 4.5/6 >>>Nimzo 7.32 Athlon 1000 -½ +1 -0 +1 -1 3.5/6 >>>Gambit Tiger 1.0 Athlon 500 -1 +0 -1 +½ -½ 3.5/6 >>>Shredder 4.0 Athlon 800 -1 +1 -0 +0 -1 3.5/6 >>>Chess Tiger 13.0 P3-840 +½ -0 +1 -1 +0 3.0/6 >>>Hiarcs 7.01 P3-500 -½ +1 -½ -½ +0 3.0/6 >>>Goliath Light 2.0ß Athlon 650 +½ -0 +0 -1 +1 3.0/6 >>>Rebel Century - Athlon 1000 -0 +0 -1 +1 -½ 3.0/6 >>>Zarkov 5.01 Athlon 1000 +½ -0 -½ +1 +0 2.5/6 >>>Hiarcs 7.32 Athlon 1100 +0 -½ +½ -0 +1 2.5/6 >>>Gandalf 4.32f Athlon 1000 +0 -1 +½ -0 -0 2.0/6 >>>Chigorin's Way Cel. 500 -0 +½ -0 +0 +½ 1.0/6 >>>Chessmaster 6000 P2-400 +1 -0 +0 -0 -0 2.0/6 >>> >>>I can't understand why Gambit Tiger was running on an Athlon 500. Can someone >>>explain please? >>> >>>A. Ponti >> >>It shouldn't need more. It's not much difference to the others' timings, much >>less than one extra ply. > > > >Don't make a fool of yourself by posting such nonsense. > >The speed difference between the winner on Athlon 1000MHz and Gambit Tiger on >Athlon 500 accounts for a 70 elo points handicap for Tiger. > >Uri also points out the fact that Gambit Tiger did not play with his own book, >which is even worse. > >You should have a good look at Gambit Tiger's performance with such a handicap, >and you will see that it is actually a very good performance. > >Instead of focusing on the fact that Gambit Tiger did less points than the 3 >programs at the top, which had ALL superior hardware (by AT LEAST a factor of >2), you should have a look at all the programs with superior hardware which did >WORSE than Gambit Tiger. There are 7 of them, count them. > > > > >> But the results of GT seem very poor indeed. If it had come equal first, I may >>have said that the few missing mhz. justifies it not getting more. But not this! > > > >You need some more knowledge about computer chess I think. > >Do the experiment yourself: take the same program, and let it run on a 1000MHz >computer and let the other copy of itself run on a 500MHz computer. Let them >play against each other. > >What result do you expect? > > > > >> But if this is blitz (I don't see it written what it is), that looks fine to >>me. Knowledge takes more time, and it is not many games anyway. > > > >The Tiger family is not optimized for a given time control. They perform equally >well at all time controls, blitz or tournament time controls. > > > > > Christophe I appologise. Maybe I'm speaking nonsense. It's certainly not right to scream it out if I don't know what I'm saying, but I was just trying to express my "reason-BASED" emotions in an immature way.(Not necesarily CORRECT reasoning) No one can doubt for one momment the work you have done, and the great results thereof. I just thought even still, that advancement is quite gradual overall. But probably it is quite quick for such a delicate art. It is very good that GT can play very risky, and still be not less than perhaps anything previous, result wise. And, of course CT better still. When I used to play many computer/computer games e.g with same engine at different speeds, with programs that could be set in this way, I didn't always see a big difference in half or double the time. Thank you for correcting me! S.Taylor
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.