Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 10:07:04 02/25/98
Go up one level in this thread
On February 24, 1998 at 16:56:03, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>This >>would be *very* ugly, but it is possible... > >I think the explanation comes very near to the truth. >A few months I have heard the same from somebody out of the chessBase >team. Or was it 1/2 a year, whenever, it was long ago and the it was the >same explanation... >Fritz needs hash-tables. With filled hash-tables the whole search is not >coming any deeper and it cannot find a stronger line. If the hash-tables >are filled you could stop the computation because it will not find much >better stuff anyway. I know Fritz 5 is strong, but not as strong as you imply. Your idea about F5 becoming paralytic once its hashtables are filled is not true, but let's assume it is. SSDF played it with 44 MB tables, which is good for about 80 seconds in the middlegame. This would mean that Fritz 5 at 80 seconds per move was 55 Elo points stronger than the second best at 3 minutes per move. Strong, eh? Now imagine F5 with 100 MB, good for 200 seconds. It would run twice as fast according to you, therefore being over 100 points stronger than any other program. Quite something, the seventh wonder... But your idea is false. The difference in speed between Fritz 5 with 20 MB tables and 100 MB tables is not greater than 35%, or some 20 or 25 Elo points. You like better a Fritz 5 playing with 20 MB? OK, say it is 10 or 15 points weaker than with SSDF's 44 MB. That's all. And by the way, the engine in the autoplaying version is identical to the commercial Fritz 5. So is the book. Instead of running this irrational campaign against Fritz 5 and the SSDF, it is in my opinion a much better idea to congratulate Frans Morsch and the Chessbase team. Enrique
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.