Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:07:56 04/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 08, 2001 at 18:05:21, Uri Blass wrote: >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 I can add that steve Ham did not use computers in his games but I believe that part of his opponents used computers and lost and the reason is simply the fact that they did not give the computer a long time to analyze because they prefered to give themselves to do the positional job. Uri
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.