Author: Chessfun
Date: 15:06:58 11/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 24, 2000 at 17:58:33, Michael Cummings wrote: >On November 24, 2000 at 13:15:52, John Merlino wrote: > >>On November 24, 2000 at 07:35:31, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On November 24, 2000 at 07:19:42, Ed Schröder wrote: >>> >>>>On November 23, 2000 at 20:58:31, Peter Skinner wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 23, 2000 at 20:38:02, Daniel Chancey wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>There will be a 10 game match between Chessmaster 7000 and Gambit Tiger 1.0 on >>>>>>chess.net Saturday. The time limit is G/60. Chessmaster 7000 will use my book >>>>>>and the personality to be chosen hasn't been decided. >>>>>> >>>>>>Prediction: Gambit Tiger wins 6-1 with 3 draws >>>>>> >>>>>>Questions, comments, concerns? Please reply or e-mail. Complaints? Please >>>>>>e-mail. (1 complaint will not stop the match this time.) >>>>>> >>>>>>Castle2000 >>>>> >>>>>Look like I will have to email you 500 times. Just kidding I am interested to >>>>>see the results. I bet Gambit wins 7-2-1. That is 7 wins, 2 draws, 1 loss. >>>> >>>>Looks like ChessMaster is the most underrated program. CM was tested >>>>once by SSDF and topped after that. Remember? It seems if a program >>>>does not have auto232 support you don't count. >>>> >>>>Ed >>> >>> >>>I remember it but it was chessmaster6000 and chessmaster7000 is supposed to be a >>>downgrade because it can use only 1 Mbyte hash tables. >>> >>> >>>I guess that chessmaster7000 is 28 elo worse than chessmaster6000 and if you >>>consider the fact that chessmaster6000 is probably 100 elo worse than >>>gambittiger we can expect result that suggest 128 elo difference >>>7:3 for gambittiger is a good result because it suggests 160 elo difference. >>> >>>I do not have chessmaster7000 and my guess about 28 elo is based on the fact >>>that the ssdf used 16 mbytes for chessmaster6000 and I assume that doubling the >>>hash tables give 7 elo improvement. >>> >>>Uri >> >>From what I recall, the SSDF uses machines with 16 MB of RAM, but did NOT change >>the default hash table size of 1MB. So, I'm going to go out on a limb and >>predict a LITTLE better result for my home team: > >For CM6K I am pretty sure that 16 megs of hash were used, on 64 meg machines >(just looking back at the current list) > >I do not think CM7K was ever even bothered to be tested by the SSDF, and I have >no idea what he means about chessmaster being downgraded, it was never tested on >the SSDF with 1 meg of hash. I assume the meaning is that since the engine is the same as CM6K running with smaller hash tables will make it weaker than CM6K. Sarah.
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.