Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 05:07:49 01/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 2002 at 07:05:16, Tina Long wrote: >Gigantic hash tables for very quick time limit didn't suit Gandalf? I don't think so. The Athlon can clear 200M in a split second, and it plays 1 0 games fine with this setting. >Gandalf is more knowledge based so GambitTigger looked a lot deeper because of >the quick time limit? Mm. Perhaps. Gandalf doesn't search very deeply, Tiger does. This won't change when playing slower games. Gandalf will search a ply deeper, but so will Tiger (and perhaps two). >The extra Tablebases helped GT? There's no practical advantage to using 6 man tablebases. (according to Robert) >Sample size too small? 24 games isn't much, but it's still a huge score difference, enough to be significant. I'll plug the result into elostat and see what comes out. >Did you notice any explaining factors or do you think this is a fair comparison >of strength? I think it's fair comparison, the hardware was about equal and both were playing at full strength. If there is something wrong with my setup (I was operating Gandalf), then I honestly wouldn't know what is was. >Apriori I would have expected about 8-6-10 or thereabouts. Hmm. I'm disappointed with Gandalf so far. I used to run Fritz 7 on the same account and with Gandalf the rating has dropped about 70-100 points! It doesn't seem to be a real top program to me. I wonder what the SSDF result will be. -- GCP
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.