Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:05:21 04/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 08, 2001 at 17:35:14, Thomas Lagershausen wrote: >On April 08, 2001 at 09:04:32, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On April 08, 2001 at 08:07:59, Thomas Lagershausen wrote: >> >>> >>>>>>Here is my guess for the evidence. >>>>>> >>>>>>Gambit1 is probably not better than Deep Fritz on one processor based on Enrique >>>>>>results. >>>>> >>>>>Enrique played 40/40 games.The programs have their own evidence on different >>>>>timecontrols.One example.DeepFritz is on 5min/game 150 Elo Points stronger than >>>>>DeepShredder, on timecontrol 40/120 DeepShredder is 50-70 Elo points stronger >>>>>than DeepFritz.Can you explain that? >>>> >>>>I do not believe it. >>>>I believe that Deep Fritz is better than Deep Shredder in all time controls. >>>> >>>>Deep Fritz is winning Shredder5 at 2 hours per move. >>>>see http://www.icdchess.com/forums/1/message.shtml?162151 >>> >>>Uri you are a computerchessexpert.But to come with only one game is not a strong >>>argument.Is phalanx stronger than Fritz because he can win some games against >>>Fritz? Why is Shredder winning every official tournament(40/120)and DeepFritz >>>placed behind Shredder? I would say DeepFritz is the best speedchess progam of >>>the world but on tournamenttimecontrols it´s only number three. >> >>I believe that stefan does better opening preperations. > >Oooohhh no stefan´s opening preperations are horrible.See the game against >gandalf in paderborn a few weeks ago.Or the bad position against nimzo in london >after the openingtheory.I personally have seen the bad opening preparition in >paderborn (WCC´99)in the game against hiarcs.It was a nightmare.Every other >program had lost two of these three games against these opponents but shredder >lost not a single one.This is what i say shredder can safe a position that is in >danger. No The important thing is to go into positions that the computer understand and not to go into good positions. I believe that Stefan knew how to lead shredder to positions that it understands more than the opponent and this is the main reason for shredder's success. > >>I decided to use Deep Fritz for my correspondence games and I also use the >>Tigers. >> >>I almost do not use Shredder because I believe that Shredder is worse in the >>early stage of the game and I am not in the endgame. >> >>I analyzed some positions with shredder5 and my impression was that it has not >>more knowledge than Deep Fritz when Deep Fritz is better in tactics. > >Fritz is much more better in tactics but positional play is the field for >shredder. >> >>I find that tactics is important even at correspondence games. > >It is superimportant, so your choice to take DeepFritz is absolutly right. >In correspondence games the humans do the positional job and the maschines do >the tactical job. I do not believe in it. I believe that in correspondence games it is better to give computers to do all the job and to avoid a computer move only in cases when you are almost sure that the computer is wrong. I believe that I am going to win a GM Har aven when all my moves are computers moves. Deep Fritz found one move in more than 22 hours and another move in more than 16 hours on PIII800. The move that it found in more than 16 hours is probably a winning move. I believe that computers are at least IM's in correspondence games and have chances to win against GM's in correspondence games. Not giving computers to do the positional job is a common mistake of humans in correspondence games and it is the reason that computers get good results in correspondence games(Steve Ham with an ICCF rating of 2508 lost against Nimzo7.32 and Fritz6 2.5:1.5(one loss against nimzo,one draw against nimzo and 2 draws against Fritz6) he did not try to play anti computer chess but he plays in the same style also against humans. Uri
This page took 0.01 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.