Author: Hermano Ecuadoriano
Date: 15:51:00 01/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 24, 2001 at 16:26:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... O.K. I'll look again and report later.
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.