Author: Chessfun
Date: 12:39:12 04/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 04, 2001 at 15:18:41, Chessfun wrote: >On April 04, 2001 at 12:52:57, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On April 04, 2001 at 10:43:24, stuart taylor wrote: >> >>>On April 04, 2001 at 09:13:03, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >>> >>>>On April 04, 2001 at 09:00:51, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 04, 2001 at 08:54:59, Aloisio Ponti Lopes wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Bullet 1 minute/game matches on ERT: >>>>>> >>>>>>Gambit Tiger 2 x Yace 0.99 76 x 24 >>>>>>Gambit Tiger 2 x Crafty 18.1 66,5 x 33,5 >>>>>>Gambit Tiger 2 x LG2000v2.9 90 x 10 !!!!! >>>>>> >>>>>>A. Ponti >>>>> >>>>>how about setting both engines to 'instant move' >>>>>and then play a few thousands of games? >>>> >>>>Oh my god >>> >>>If Kramnik or Kasparov were playing at instant time, or even 1 minute per game, >>>I think their level of play would be quite weak. >>> I don't see the real need of concentrating on making programs to play 2-300 >>>elo points higher on lightning speed than at longer controls, much more so than >>>the way humans do it. >>> I don't even see what the great fun is in testing it. It's a little bit >>>interesting, but not all that much. I don't think it can be used to demonstrate >>>the quality of the program. Maybe the contrary is true, as the longer timings >>>are the interesting thing. >>>S.Taylor >> >> >> >>When you get a new program I think it's quite natural to begin with fast time >>controls, so you get an overview on a large number of games in a reasonnable >>amount of time. >> >>Do you think Aloiso is going to stop now? I guess he is going to try longer time >>controls. >> >>Fast time controls are also important because they are commonly used on the >>chess servers. >> >>Another thing to consider is that game in one minute on a PIII-800 computer must >>be something like game in 4 hours on the hardware of 10 years ago. >> >>If 10 years ago you or other chess enthusiasts were interested in games in 4 >>hours, then I don't understand why you would regard game in 1 minute on today's >>computers with such contempt. These games show probably an even better chess >>level (because software has been vastly improved). >> >>And finally, you could complain if the program in question (Tiger) was only >>specialized for fast time controls, but as you will see it is not. >> >> >> >> Christophe > > >I'm not sure that you can compare exactly as all programs behave differently >especially such fast lightning games. I would think a lot of it depends on >pruning especially at such fast speeds. > >Currently I have been running a 15 engine 1 min 1 sec inc Lightning >tournament all play all 80 games each, 8400 games total, this is autoplayed >and has been running now for about 10 days and currently Tiger leads Gambit >by about 5 with about a 20 point gap till the next engine, Nimzo 7.32 is in >last and the Shredder's have yet to play. All programs using their original >opening books except crafty which is using general.ctg. All 5 men tablebases >to programs that use them. > >While I agree both Tiger's are also very strong at longer controls currently >with the results I have, most matches are being won by say 50-30. At longer >controls while my results were very good they weren't this impressive. > >Engines playing; >Junior 6a >Junior 6 >Junior 6 >Fritz 6a >Fritz 6b >Fritz 6e >Deep Fritz >Nimzo 8 >Nimzo 7.32 >Tiger 14.0 >Gambit 2.0 >Crafty 18.03 CB with general.ctg >Hiarcs 7.32 >Shredder 4.0 >Shredder 5.0 > >Sarah. Hmm something is wrong with that list as Junior 5 is also playing. Guess I'll skip Shredder 4 and hold at 15. Sarah.
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.