Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 23:47:12 12/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 15, 2000 at 11:37:55, Christophe Theron wrote: >On December 15, 2000 at 02:17:58, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >>On December 14, 2000 at 21:01:38, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On December 13, 2000 at 23:38:41, Laurence Chen wrote: >>> >>>>In this position Shredder 5 played the losing move 36. h4??, it could have drawn >>>>the game with the move 36. g3! It took Shredder at least 30 min. in my Pentium >>>>III 600e with 128 MB Hash Table to evaluate the position as close to 0.00 >>>>(-0.01), it took Hiarcs 7.32 a few seconds to find 36. g3!, however the >>>>evaluation was -0.76. Perhaps Shredder 5 will benefit the most on a super fast >>>>computer and at a longer time control. >>> >>> >>> >>>I don't see any reason to believe that Shredder would benefit more from faster >>>computers. >>> >>>I'm always very skeptical when I read such claims. In the past it has always >>>been used as an excuse for programs that were allegedly very strong but failed >>>to demonstrate it. >>> >>>Dig into the CCC archives and check what I say. >>> >>>The escape was always "it will be better with faster computers or with longer >>>time controls". Which is an easy escape, because at the time the faster >>>computers were available a new version of the program was available too, so it >>>was then out of question to test the older one. >>> >>>I want to say that this is not an attack against Shredder. This program is >>>strong, and does not need IMO the "benefits more from faster computers" excuse. >>> >>>But I read this unjustified excuse so often that I think it's time to react. >> >>It is not an excuse. > > > >I want to repeat that my statement was not meant as an attack against Shredder. Yes, I did not took it as an attack. > >I have used the word "excuse" because the argument has been used as an excuse >for other programs in the past, but I made it clear that I think that Shredder >does not need such an excuse. Yes, I know and I agree. > > > > >> The program, as well as the opening book are made to give >>the most at long time levels. So it is true that the program plays better at 60 >>minutes game or higher. >>I don't know about the new Chess Tiger, I don't have it yet. I'll find out! > > > >Chess Tiger has not been optimized to play at a specific time controls level. It >has been optimized to play the best at all time controls. That's good! > >I have been working for years with this idea in mind. > >So the engine performs as well at any time controls, but on the other hand I >think the book written by Jeroen has been designed with longer time controls in >mind. That's another story. By the way I must say that I feel sorry to have attached Jeroen some months ago. I was upset and I reacted wrongly. I apology. I hope he accepts my excuses. I'll not do it again. I always had a great consideration of him and his work. I also believe that we (all the people involved with the chess programs work) should fight each other only on the board and not out of it. This is what I am planning to do. I am talking about myself, but I believe you do the same. > > > > >>Anyway congratulations to you and your team. My friends told me that your latest >>programs are really good! > > > >Thanks. You welcome. I think you deverved it. > > > > Christophe Sandro
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.