Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:26:23 01/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 24, 2001 at 15:37:40, Hermano Ecuadoriano wrote: >On January 24, 2001 at 14:25:39, Richard Heldmann wrote: > >>ERT.04 >>Pentium 200MMX 64mb RAM Windows 98 >>Crafty 18.1 8mb hash >>Chess Tiger 8mb hash >> >> 12345678901234567890 >>1 Chess Tiger 13.0 1½1011½111½11½01½½½1 14.5/20 >>2 Crafty v18.1 0½0100½000½00½10½½½0 5.5/20 >> >>PGN available on request. > >Thanks. >My testing shows Tiger13 better than Gambit Tiger against Crafty. >My testing also shows that their scores against Crafty improve with >slower time controls, and your data here support that. I have >Tiger13 +13 -6 =14 against Crafty 18.1 on a PII-300 at 5 3, and other >results. > >I think that with larger sample sizes, it could be proven that the Tigers >are relatively better against Crafty with slower time controls, or equivalently, >on faster hardware. >Christophe Theron "himself" doesn't believe this has ever been proven. > >Here's one quick experiment: On your 200Mhz machine, at a time control of >5 3 or faster, Gambit Tiger might lose to Crafty. It scored +12 -12 =7 on >mine. I can tell you absolutely that your data is flawed. Crafty is _absolutely_ weaker at blitz than it is at longer time controls. And this is based on _thousands_ of test games, not on a few dozen. The things I do in my search rely on fast hardware, or else long time controls. The faster the game, the worse Crafty will do as its simple q-search will get it into trouble faster since null-move failures happen more often at reduced depth...
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.