Author: Michael Cummings
Date: 15:19:04 11/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 24, 2000 at 18:06:58, Chessfun wrote: >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. Ah I though he said that both CM7K and CM7K were being downgraded cause they were the same.
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.