Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 00:54:25 04/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 07, 2001 at 22:01:59, Christophe Theron wrote: >>You know very well that you had been invited if your program had been able to >>play with 8 cpus. You wrote here in this forum that you shouldn't make Tiger SMP >>at least in the near future. >>I believe a lot of people agree that the best programs today is the above and >>Tiger. It is indeed possible that Tiger could qualify on a Athlon 1333 vs the >>Deeps 2x933 in say 20 game matches. >>But I don't believe any sponsors with a 8 cpu-machine should like this, they >>want a good result and PR for the machine and so on. Tiger is strong and maybee >>the strongest of all programs but I don't believe it is better then Deep-x >>plaing on a 8 cpu-machine. You know that a lot of people including me should be >>happy if Gambit qualified but only if it was capable of playing with 8 cpus. > > > >Is playing with 8 cpus mandatory for this event? > >Is it sponsored by a hardware company who demands that the program makes full >usage of 8 CPUs? I have searched the Braingames site and could not find the information. Anybody who can answer this question? >>>Anyway the most important factor in this match is not going to be the speed of >>>the computer. Chosing these programs because they can run on multiprocessor PCs >>>is a joke. The strength difference of one, two or 4 processors when you face a >>>human player does not matter much. Ask Bob. >> >>This is nonsense and you know it one of few times you agree with Bob. > > > >I have never disagreed with Bob on this topic. It is well known for example that >Rebel has better records against human players than against computers. > >It is obvious that playing style makes much more difference against human >players than ply depth or comp-comp performance. That is exactly the point, playing style is the key word. In comp-comp search (ply-depth) dominates; in human-comp playing style is the dominating factor. Rebel never has been a speed monster but till now I think Rebel is the only program that is undefated when the topic is a match, first Yusupov then Anand and recently GM v/d Wiel. Like Gambit Tiger you can not exclude Rebel on beforehand. The key to its success is what GM v/d Wiel admitted himself: =========== [Q] What can you say about Rebel's play during the match? [JvdW] It avoided 'anti-computer' type of positions more often than other programs so far. =========== You can check it out on the Rebel pages. About the Tiger... I bet 10-1 one of the Tigers, Chess Tiger 14 or Gambit Tiger 2.0 will top the next SSDF list. Tiger has won the last edition of Ausfess leaving all the "Deeps" behind: 1. Chess-Tiger 13.0 Athlon 1,3 GHz 6.5 46.5 31.75 2. Hiarcs 7.32 Athlon 800 6.5 46.0 32.75 3. CM 6555 Athlon 1,2 GHz 6.0 45.5 29.00 4. SOS 11/2000 Athlon 800 5.5 44.5 26.25 5. Deep Fritz 2x P3 1 GHz 5.5 43.5 26.00 6. Gandalf 4.32h Athlon 1,2 GHz 5.5 36.5 20.25 7. Hiarcs 7.01 Athlon 1,0 5.0 45.0 24.00 8. Gambit-Tiger 1.0 P3-840 5.0 44.0 22.25 9. Shredder5 Erbsenzähler P3-1000 5.0 41.5 20.25 10. Deep Shredder 2x P3-935 5.0 41.0 20.25 11. Deep Junior 2x Athlon 1Ghz 5.0 40.5 18.50 12. Century 3.0 P3-866 4.5 45.5 21.25 13. Junior 6 Athlon 1,2 GHz 4.5 38.5 16.75 14. Triple-Brain 2 x Celeron 500 4.0 36.5 13.25 15. Shredder 5 Athlon 1,2 GHz 4.0 36.0 13.00 16. Fritz 6 P2-400 3.5 44.5 16.00 17. The King 2.54 P4-1300 3.5 38.0 14.25 18. Genius 6,5 P3-800 3.5 36.5 12.00 19. Nimzo 8 Athlon 1 GHz 3.0 36.0 10.75 20. Goliath Light Exp. Athlon 1,2 3.0 35.0 10.25 21. M- Chess 7.1 P3-500 2.5 35.0 8.25 22. CM 8000 Athlon 1,2 GHz 2.5 35.0 8.00 >>In his extrapolation Deep Blue didn't won because of speed but for its strength. > > > >I don't understand what you mean. I'm not extrapolating anything about Deep Blue >anyway. > > > > >>>The thing that will really matter in this match is PLAYING STYLE. You can choose >>>at random between Fritz, Shredder and Junior, it does not matter, they play the >>>same kind of chess. >> >>They do, very categorical, I thought I answered to you and not Thorsten. > > > >Do I need to explain, really? > >You know that from the strong human players point of view, these programs have a >very similar playing style. > >When they look at Gambit Tiger's games, they immediately see that it plays >differently. Even a beginner can see it. > > > > >>>If you want to put a strong player under pressure, I think I have a point if I >>>say that Gambit Tiger has more chances to do it than the 3 others. >> >>It is a point but do you rally think Gambit 1333 is better then Deep-x 8x700?! > > > >For what? > >Playing against a computer, playing against a human player, or warming the room >up? > > > > >>>I hope the organizers will think twice about this. >> >>What can they do, when you say your staying with a one-cpu program? > > > >If they really want to go for multiprocessor programs ONLY, then I guess there >are even better choices than Deep Fritz, Deep Shredder or Deep Junior. > >I think Don Dailey's programs could qualify as well. And also P.Conners, Dark >Thought, and other university programs. Right, P.Conners last performance was tremendous. Therefore you can not ignore the program as a candidate too. Ed >You can try to see the problem from any angle, the choice of DF, DS and DJ is >still highly arbitrary. > >And there are arguments in favor of Gambit Tiger. > Christophe
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.