Author: Uri Blass
Date: 23:27:27 06/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 08, 2001 at 18:04:52, Rajen Gupta wrote: >On June 08, 2001 at 10:44:29, Harald Faber wrote: > >>On June 07, 2001 at 11:35:16, Rajen Gupta wrote: >> >>>On June 07, 2001 at 09:53:24, Harald Faber wrote: >>> >>>>Clear win for Tiger, no chance for the oldie. 7.5-2.5 in favour of Tiger. Even >>>>booklines up to 30 moves (10th game) didn't help...games, as always, at >>>>www.geocities.comHarald1312/HaraldFaberE.html. >>> >>>hi hrald: how are you coducting this match-on 2 computers/ and what opening >>>books are you usinig? >> >>I am using the according opening books, that means the normal ct.tbk for Tiger >>14 and the tournament book is activated in MChessPro 8. >> >>>i am running a match on a single celeron 900, eng vs eng, 64 mb hash tables >>>each; 90min/60 moves; both programmes using an individual copy of the chessbase >>>tiger book. currently chessbasetiger14 vs junior5 w=10; l=7 d=10. at 20 games >>>both were running equal with w=6, l=6 d=8. i'm not sure if the latest progs are >>>that much stronger if the oldies can play of the same opening books. >>> >>>rajen >> >>Don't forget that many opening books are adjusted to the engine, so testing with >>only one book to which all programs have access just lets you test this book. If >>you want to check a program, you have to use the given opening book. That is why >>I am not very lucky about the fact that the Chessbase Tiger does not have the >>Noomen-opening book. I am sure that Tiger is strong enough to play well with >>this opening book too, but I am not sure if the results would be better with the >>Noomen-book. > >i'm using the tiger book for both programmes and the engines are running in the >tiger interface. (so no excuses for the tiger)assuming that the chessbase tiger >book is not optimised for tiger(which i doubt very much-in my opinion the >chessbase book is at least as good as the noomen book,if not better)it certainly >is not optimised for junior 5. i initially thought of using the junior5 book for >both programmes but then there would be the excuse that tiger is using an >un-optimised book. the fact that as of today the score is tiger w=14;l=11; d=15 >shows that there is very little to separate tired old junior5 from the so called >'monster" chesstiger. > i am a firm believer in the theory that 99% of the so-called improvement in >newer programmes comes from the opening book and that basically any good opening >book consisting of high level gm games will equally suit all programmes > >rajen 99% of the difference? The result suggest 30 elo difference between Junior5 and tiger14. if 99% of the difference between Junior5 and tiger14 is because of better opening books then it suggest that the difference between tiger14 and Junior5 is 3000 elo. Another points to consider: 1)30 elo can be wrong and the statistical error is still more than 20 elo(you need hundreds of game in order to have statistical difference of 20 elo) 2)The match is done on one computer and it is possible that tiger14 is better on 2 computers(I do not think that it create big differences but the difference can be something like 20 elo) 3)You cannot decide which program is better by match that is only between 2 programs because it is possible that A beats B, B beats C and C beats A. Even if tiger14 cannot get significant result against Junior5 you need to compare also the result of Junior5 and tiger14 against other programs. 4)It is possible that Junior5 likes your hardware more than tiger14(if Junior5 is 2 times faster relative to the ssdf hardware when tiger14 is only 1.7 times faster relative to the ssdf hardware it can explain part of the difference) 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.