Author: Jorge
Date: 11:26:50 05/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 28, 2002 at 13:47:43, Terry McCracken wrote: >On May 28, 2002 at 13:33:47, Wayne Lowrance wrote: > >>On May 28, 2002 at 12:54:47, Sandi Ordinario wrote: >> >>>On May 28, 2002 at 12:52:40, Sandi Ordinario wrote: >>> >>>>On May 28, 2002 at 12:50:30, Terry McCracken wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 28, 2002 at 12:00:56, Sandi Ordinario wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 28, 2002 at 11:53:55, Jorge wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On May 28, 2002 at 11:00:51, Sandi Ordinario wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On May 28, 2002 at 09:45:17, Terry McCracken wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On May 28, 2002 at 09:19:30, Sandi Ordinario wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Hi Mustafa et al, >>>>>>>>>>Last week I wrote about CM on Pentium 3 beating Fritz on Pentium 4 whether >>>>>>>>>>playing White or Black. I optimized Book options, reduced Hash to 2MB and turned >>>>>>>>>>off all options except notation for Fritz. Both software was on 10 sec/move. If >>>>>>>>>>I swapped them on the computers, CM8K run on Pentium 4 would beat Fritz on less >>>>>>>>>>than 40 moves very brilliantly (sacrifices and all). I don't know what to do. I >>>>>>>>>>hope it is not all hype for Fritz. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Then I tried 20sec/move same settings but I raised Fritz's Hash to 4MB on the >>>>>>>>>>Pentium 4 as white. It was able to draw for the first time CM8000 after 80 >>>>>>>>>>moves. Perhaps Fritz is better with more thinking time, that is with higher Hash >>>>>>>>>>setting. What do you think? I think you're trolling! >>>>>>>>>>Sandi >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>http://w1.859.telia.com/%7Eu85924109/ssdf/list.htm >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>TM >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Hi TM >>>>>>>>I looked at the results of the computer tournament and immediately I noticed >>>>>>>>that the top dozen or so were running on AMD Athlon at 1.2GHz but CM and all the >>>>>>>>rest of the runner-ups were on 450MHz. This is unfair. Why does not someone run >>>>>>>>them at the same computer type and speed like I am doing? Perhaps they will get >>>>>>>>a surprise of their life. >>>>>>>>Sandi >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I agree! If this is the case, other variables should be the same or at least as >>>>>>>close as the same as possible. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>regards, >>>>>>>jorge >>>>>> >>>>>>Hi Jorge! >>>>>>I am glad you agree with my observations. Perhaps computer software performance >>>>>>should be better regulated. Thanks for your view. >>>>>>Sandi >>>>> >>>>>To both of you, SSDF does a Great Job, now look at the list with the top >>>>>software running on K6-2 450Mgh 128MB RAM hardware. It is a fair and well >>>>>regulated. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>10 Deep Fritz 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2652 23 -23 945 61% 2570 >>>>>11 Gandalf 5.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2646 29 -28 595 57% 2594 >>>>>12 Gandalf 5.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2642 49 -50 202 46% 2673 >>>>>13 Gambit Tiger 2.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2640 30 -29 592 66% 2521 >>>>>14 Fritz 7.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2631 45 -44 250 56% 2592 >>>>>14 Junior 7.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2631 27 -26 739 67% 2507 >>>>>16 Chess Tiger 14.0 CB 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2630 28 -27 652 62% 2541 >>>>>16 Shredder 6.0 UCI 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2630 65 -62 124 57% 2578 >>>>>18 Fritz 6.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2623 23 -22 1014 63% 2529 >>>>>19 Crafty 18.12/CB 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2617 31 -30 519 53% 2595 >>>>>20 Shredder 5.32 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2606 31 -30 545 62% 2521 >>>>>21 Junior 6.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2588 18 -18 1483 58% 2533 >>>>>22 Chess Tiger 12.0 DOS 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2587 22 -22 1021 55% 2551 >>>>>23 Shredder 5.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2586 20 -20 1176 56% 2544 >>>>>24 Rebel Century 4.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2571 59 -61 138 44% 2612 >>>>>25 Shredder 4.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2568 23 -22 986 58% 2508 >>>>>26 Nimzo 8.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2554 24 -24 846 53% 2536 >>>>>27 Fritz 5.32 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2553 24 -23 890 55% 2514 >>>>>28 Nimzo 7.32 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2551 21 -21 1070 54% 2520 >>>>>29 Junior 5.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2537 22 -22 996 52% 2520 >>>>>30 Gandalf 5.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2532 73 -68 102 60% 2458 >>>>>31 Gandalf 4.32f 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2531 28 -28 627 51% 2524 >>>>>32 Hiarcs 7.32 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2527 21 -21 1131 47% 2546 >>>>>33 Hiarcs 7.01 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2521 30 -31 525 43% 2573 >>>>>34 SOS 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2520 19 -19 1307 47% 2539 >>>>>35 Gandalf 4.32h 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2518 36 -36 378 53% 2498 >>>>>36 Rebel Century 3.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2517 30 -30 546 49% 2523 >>>>>37 Chessmaster 8000 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2516 44 -45 251 45% 2549 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>http://w1.859.telia.com/%7Eu85924109/ssdf/list.htm >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Terry >>> >>>Please refer to my message to Pavel. One end of the spectrum does not provide a >>>good conclusion for anyone. CM8000 should be run on the same hardware as the >>>winner and compared with the rest. This should be more statistically significant >>>unless I'm off my rocker! >>>Sandi >> >>Listen to what there saying. >>Wayne > >Who them or me? I did, and the evidence ways highly for Frit7 not CM8K. > >I suggest following the tournaments posted here as well...CM8K got it's @ss >kicked by F7 ver. 7.0.0.6, or were you not paying attention? > >Also the SSDF bases their work on statistical numbers that _are_ significant. > >Have a problem, write them! > >Terry First of all, there are strong indications, although not proven, that CM8000 default settings are NOT the strongest settings (look at Chessfun web site). Second, even if Fritz7 is better than the TheKing ver3.12 (also not proven), it sure is NOT going to be by a wide margin that was implied above. jorge
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.