Author: Dr. Franklin
Date: 18:40:39 11/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 09, 2001 at 20:18:35, Christophe Theron wrote:
>On November 09, 2001 at 19:56:34, Thomas Mayer wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>in winboard forum one has posted some games of Palm Tiger against not so strong
>>winboard engines.
>>Next is interesting:
>>
>>[Event "Palm Tiger vs. WinBoard"]
>>[Site "Athlon 1333 vs. Palm Vx"]
>>[Date "2001.11.08"]
>>[Round "-"]
>>[White "Chess Tiger 14.6"]
>>[Black "Grizzly 1.31"]
>>[Result "0-1"]
>>[TimeControl "900"]
>>
>>1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. d4 exd4 6. Qxd4 Bg4 7. Qxd8+
>>Rxd8 8. Nc3 Bb4 9. Bg5 Bxc3+ 10. bxc3 f6 11. Bf4 Bxf3 12. gxf3 Rd7 13. h4
>>Ne7 14. h5 b6 15. Rd1 Nc8 16. Rxd7 Kxd7 17. Rg1 Rg8 18. Ke2 Nd6 19. Bh6 g5
>>20. hxg6 hxg6 21. Bf4 g5 22. Kd3 Rd8 23. Bh2 Nb5 24. f4 Kc8+ 25. Ke3 gxf4+
>>26. Bxf4 Nxc3 27. Rg7 Rd7 28. Rg8+ Kb7 29. f3 Nxa2 30. Rf8 Nb4 31. c4 Nc2+
>>32. Ke2 f5 33. exf5 b5 34. cxb5 cxb5 35. f6 Nd4+ 36. Ke3 Ne6 37. Re8 Nxf4
>>38. Kxf4 b4 39. Re4 a5 40. Re5 Kb6 41. Re7 Rd8 42. f7 Rf8 43. Kf5 b3 44.
>>Kf6 b2 45. Re1 a4 46. Ke7 Rxf7+ 47. Kxf7 a3 48. Rb1 c5 49. f4 c4 50. f5 c3
>>51. Re1 c2 52. Re6+ Kc5 53. Re5+ Kd4 54. Ra5 c1=Q 55. Rxa3 b1=Q 56. Ra4+
>>Ke3 57. Ra7 Qxf5+ 58. Kg7 Qc3+ 59. Kg8 Qcc8+ 60. Kg7 Qcf8#
>>{Black mates} 0-1
>>
>>[Event "Palm Tiger vs. WinBoard"]
>>[Site "Athlon 1333 vs. Palm Vx"]
>>[Date "2001.11.08"]
>>[Round "-"]
>>[White "Grizzly 1.31"]
>>[Black "Chess Tiger 14.6"]
>>[Result "1-0"]
>>[TimeControl "900"]
>>
>>1. f4 d5 2. Nf3 Bg4 3. g3 Bxf3 4. exf3 e6 5. Ke2 d4 6. Bg2 d3+ 7. cxd3 Nc6
>>8. Re1 Qd7 9. Kf1 Nb4 10. d4 Nd3 11. Re3 Qxd4 12. Qc2 Nxc1 13. Qxc1 Nf6 14.
>>Nc3 O-O-O 15. Nb5 Qd7 16. a4 a6 17. Nxc7 Kb8 18. Nxa6+ bxa6 19. Qc4 Qc8 20.
>>Rc1 Qxc4+ 21. Rxc4 Nd5 22. Rb3+ Ka7 23. f5 Bd6 24. f4 Rc8 25. Rxc8 Rxc8 26.
>>Rd3 Rc1+ 27. Ke2 Be7 28. fxe6 fxe6 29. f5 Nc7 30. Rd7 Bb4 31. fxe6 Rc5 32.
>>d4 Rc2+ 33. Kd3 Rd2+ 34. Ke3 Kb6 35. e7 Rxg2 36. Rxc7 Bxe7 37. Rxe7 Rxb2
>>38. h4 Rb3+ 39. Kf2 Ra3 40. Rxg7 Rxa4 41. Ke3 h5 42. Rg5 Ra3+ 43. Kf4 Rd3
>>44. d5 a5 45. Ke4 Rb3 46. d6 a4 47. Rd5 Rxg3 48. d7 Rg4+ 49. Kf5 Rg8 50.
>>d8=Q+ Rxd8 51. Rxd8 Kc7 52. Ra8 Kc6 53. Rxa4 Kb5 54. Ra8 Kc6 55. Rh8 Kd5
>>56. Rxh5 Kd4 57. Rg5 Kd5 58. h5 Kc4 59. h6 Kb3 60. h7 Ka2 61. Rg3 Ka1 62.
>>h8=Q+ Kb1 63. Rg2 Kc1 64. Qa1#
>>{White mates} 1-0
>>
>>[Event "Palm Tiger vs. WinBoard"]
>>[Site "Athlon 1333 vs. Palm Vx"]
>>[Date "2001.11.08"]
>>[Round "-"]
>>[White "Chess Tiger 14.6"]
>>[Black "Grizzly 1.31"]
>>[Result "0-1"]
>>[TimeControl "900"]
>>
>>1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 dxc4 4. e3 b5 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. a3 Bxc3+ 7. bxc3 Nf6
>>8. Ne5 O-O 9. a4 c6 10. Qf3 Qd5 11. Ba3 Qxf3 12. gxf3 Re8 13. Bd6 a6 14.
>>Bxb8 Rxb8 15. Nxc6 Rb6 16. axb5 axb5 17. Nb4 Nd5 18. Nxd5 exd5 19. f4 b4
>>20. cxb4 Rxb4 21. Bg2 Bb7 22. O-O Ra8 23. Rab1 Rxb1 24. Rxb1 c3 25. Rxb7 c2
>>26. Rc7 Ra1+ 27. Bf1 c1=Q 28. Rxc1 Rxc1 29. Kg2 f5 30. Bb5 Kf7 31. Kf3 Ke6
>>32. Be8 Rh1 33. Kg2 Rb1 34. Kf3 g6 35. h3 Rb4 36. Bc6 Kd6 37. Be8 Rb8 38.
>>Ba4 Rb1 39. Be8 Rh1 40. Kg2 Rc1 41. Kg3 Ke7 42. Bb5 Rg1+ 43. Kf3 Ke6 44.
>>Bc6 Rh1 45. Kg3 Rc1 46. Bb7 Rg1+ 47. Kf3 Kd6 48. Ba6 Rh1 49. Kg3 Ra1 50.
>>Bb7 h6 51. Kf3 Ra5 52. Bc8 Ra7 53. Kg3 Kc6 54. Be6 Rc7 55. e4 dxe4 56. Kh4
>>Kd6 57. Bb3 Ke7 58. Bg8 Rc3 59. d5 Kf6 60. f3 Rxf3 61. Be6 g5+ 62. fxg5+
>>hxg5+ 63. Kh5 Rxh3#
>>{Black mates} 0-1
>>
>>In most rating lists, Grizzly is around 1800-1900 - this new version is a little
>>bit stronger, but I doubt that it is over 2000. Does this mean that Chess Tiger
>>on Palm is also clearly under 2000 ?
>
>
>
>1) How can you base any strength evaluation on 3 games only?
>
>2) You say that Grizzly is around 1800-1900 "in most rating lists". But Grizzly
>is not on the SSDF list. Your post suggests that the SSDF ratings cannot be
>compared to FIDE ratings. Why don't you start by assuming that the rating lists
>in which Grizzly appears cannot be compared to the SSDF list, and that the
>ratings cannot be compared? So basically we have no valid rating for Grizzly.
>
>The valid way to evaluate the strength of Chess Tiger for Palm is to let it play
>against computers that have a SSDF rating.
>
>Other methods are prone to a huge margin of error.
>
>I hope the SSDF will test Chess Tiger for Palm.
>
>
>
> Christophe
>
>
>
>
>
>>Or is this another point where
>>engine-engine matches are very different to engine - human matches ? Anyway, I
>>would like to see some more matches of Chess Tiger on Palm against the lower
>>edge of the winboard-engines... And besides that, frequently here are some
>>postings of games ChessTiger on Palm against some well known dedicated chess
>>computers which are listed on the SSDF-list. ChessTiger wins many games, does
>>that mean that those old irons are still overestimated on the SSDF-list. Or
>>should we finally stop to compare SSDF-ELO with human ELO ? (Which I say for a
>>long time now - there is no real comparrison... The 100 ELO-penalty for the hole
>>list was somehow irregular because the old iron often have showed there strength
>>against humans, so why decrease them 100 ELOs ?)
>>
>>Greets, Thomas
>>
>>P.S.: I think a solution for the SSDF would be a completely different rating.
>>Just stop to make them compareable with human rating and set a starting level
>>for the lowest listed engine of e.g. 0 or e.g. 10000 so just the numbers are
>>very different to FIDE-ELO and noone would compare anymore.
This page took 0.02 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.