Author: Mike S.
Date: 22:42:07 08/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 20, 2002 at 17:25:43, Uri Blass wrote: >(...) >No reason to be surprised. >This test was designed to put Fritz on top because the analysis was done by >Fritz to decide about the positions. What exactly do you mean? Do you really mean, "designed to put Fritz on top"? If not - and I assume (and hope) you didn't mean that - then I suggest to be a bit more careful. Now it sounds like an accusation. Btw. you probably missed that the test has been developed in several stages (with increasing number of positions), where in between *Gromit* 3.9.5 (!) once was on top. The first version (40 pos.) was designed and published before Fritz was available. >I am sure that Fritz is going to have bad result if someone design a test to put >tiger on top. It would be unethical, and I don't expect somebody would do that or ever has done - if he would hide the intention. No matter which program is favoured of course (comment for the suspicious :o). OTOH, it could be interesting as an experiment if one would explain it before, that he'd try to see if it is possible at all. It would require to choose positions where not only Tiger is good, but also Fritz is slower at the same time (or in the majority of the positions). I think while both are about equally strong in gameplay, Tiger 14 is usually behind Fritz 7 in testsuites, in general. Which doesn't mean it couldn't solve faster then and when, than Fritz 7 (especially in the endgame; CT 14 is *ahead of F7* in the endgame part of the WM Test!). I found that in the WM Test, Tiger 14.0 was better than Fritz 7.0.0.8 in 31 positions, Fritz 7.0.0.8 was better in 52, and the rest (17) both didn't solve. Hm... it seems that with a *smaller selection* of large test suites, you could "prove" anything (also with other pairs of programs within a reasonable bandwidth). But I don't expect that anybody would ever do that. It would be quite cruel to suspect that! Even manufactureres - where it's normal to present good performances of their programs only - don't do that. They usually compare with previous versions of their own programs, and don't present such large test suites with results (which would be interesting though, because there surely is interesting data, special position collections etc. hidden in the test labs :o). Regards, M.Scheidl
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.