Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:58:42 12/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 15, 2000 at 18:52:25, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 15, 2000 at 12:37:36, Laurence Chen wrote: > >>On December 14, 2000 at 20:31:56, James T. Walker wrote: >> >>>On December 14, 2000 at 13:18:47, Steve Maughan wrote: >>> >>>>I don't think I've ever seen such a wide margin diminish to defeat! >>><snip> >>> >>>I have only had Shredder for 4 days but I saw this type of behavior a lot at >>>blitz on an Athlon 900 Mhz. Even at G/30 this seems to happen. At G/60 on an >>>Athlon 900 it has not showed up yet. That's why I made the comment earlier >>>"Shredder a mudder". Refering to the fact that Shredder seems to like the >>>slower time controls with faster hardware. I suspect there are a lot of holes >>>in it's eval that can only be covered up with deeper searches. Just my opinion >>>based on 4 days. :-) >>>Jim >>I had Shredder 5 for a 3 days, and I came with the same conclusion. The >>evaluations of Shredder changes as it digs deeper, which means that one way to >>help Shredder is to use the fastest computer available, and slower time control. >>Regards, >>Laurence > >The evaluation of all programs is changed when they get deeper. >There are holes in the evaluations of all chess programs. > >If you find that the evaluation of Shredder is changed more than other program >then it still does not prove that there are bigger holes in Shredder's >evaluation because it is possible to explain it by other reasons. > >Uri I can add that the +4.68 was not a hole in Shredder's evaluation because Shredder had a clearly better position when it evaluated itself as +4.68 Uri
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.