Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:38:14 11/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 25, 2002 at 10:25:35, James T. Walker wrote: >On November 25, 2002 at 06:22:49, Chessfun wrote: > >>On November 24, 2002 at 22:44:32, James T. Walker wrote: >> >>>On November 24, 2002 at 13:20:36, Chessfun wrote: >>> >>>>On November 24, 2002 at 11:09:48, James T. Walker wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 23, 2002 at 13:46:33, Jan Kiwitter wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On November 23, 2002 at 13:41:27, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On November 23, 2002 at 11:01:49, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On November 23, 2002 at 11:00:04, Joachim Rang wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On November 23, 2002 at 08:14:08, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Deep Fritz will have another miraculous return in the last 6 games just like in >>>>>>>>>>the previous matches. I predict a 21 to 19 in favor of Chess Tiger 15. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Pichard. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>where is the return, if you predict another 6 draws? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>:) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Good point! :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Christophe >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No, I didn't say that I predict 6 more draws, but probably another win or even >>>>>>>two for Deep Fritz and the remaining draws. >>>>>> >>>>>>But then the result cannot be 21-19. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Pichard >>>>> >>>>>I'm amazed it's this close. I have played 25 games of Fritz 7 vs Chess Tiger 15 >>>>>at G/60min and Fritz 7 leads by 18.5-6.5. Chess Tiger 15 is currently ranked # >>>>>22 in my standard database after 101 games. I'm getting miserable results for >>>>>Tiger 15-normal. I find it hard to believe it improves dramatically when the >>>>>time control is raised to 40/2hours. >>>>>Jim >>>> >>>>Going back to beta testing as you may recall, my results even at 40/40 were >>>>always good, as were others. Also this match is Deep Fritz 7 not Fritz 7. >>>> >>>>I also don't see the time control as being too relevant as again from memory >>>>even at fast blitz Tiger 15 performed better than Tiger 14. >>>> >>>>Sarah. >>> >>>Hello Sarah, >>>Well if you go back to the beta testing you will see I never did have really >>>good results. In fact vs Junior 7 I seem to remember that Tiger got like 3.5 >>>points out of 24 games (7 draws no wins). It was close to Fritz 7 but never was >>>ahead of Fritz 7 in my test. I played over 1000 games and my results were >>>mediocre especially vs Fritz 7 & Junior. As I said above Chess Tiger 15 was >>>ranked # 22 in my database. That's not very impressive although it contains >>>only 101 games of Chess Tiger 15-normal. Since the beta test I have now >>>swithced to XP2400+ cpus and so far results are about the same. I'm running >>>Tiger with either 96M/192M hash and have all 3/4/5 man tablebases. It also beat >>>Ruffian by only 14-12. Ruffian is ranked about #8 in my database now and Chess >>>Tiger 15 moved up to the 18th spot after some wins vs Hiarcs 8 today. I don't >>>like to test at 40/2hrs because it takes too long and besides the SSDF does a >>>good job at that time control. >>>Jim >> >>I remember your results against Junior 7 as it was after the final release and >>as I recall we had a thread on the subject. As you remember I also tried exactly >>at the same time as you and posted my 9 games at 40/40 +3 -2 =2. >> >>If I also remember your results earlier were much better although there were no >>changes in the final beta. I even took the liberty of checking and your results >>against Junior 7 in longish games were; >> >>Chess Tiger 15 normal vs Junior 7 >>@G/60 min 9.5-4.5 >>@ 40/60 min 7.0-3.0 >> >>Taken from your post dated 08-09-2002. >> >>Sarah. > >As I said, I played over 1000 games. That post was after 925 games and ignores >the poor results with Junior mentioned earlier. My results since then have >continued to be worse as indicated by my post. My latest database does not >include the beta test games. I never included them in the database because it >was a "beta" version as far as I knew and I didn't want to screw up my database >with games from a broken beta engine. In retrospect I could have kept them >since the beta ended up being the final version as far as I know. Here is what >is in my "standard" database now for Tiger 15 vs: >Fritz 7 8.5-16.5 (corrected) >Junior 7 2.0-12.0 >Ruffian 14.0-12.0 >Shredder 6Classic 7.0-11.0 >Hiarcs 8 9.0-9.0 >Shredder Paderborn 5.0-3.0 >Aristarch 4.4 4.5-2.5 >Junior 6 3.5-1.5 > >That is a score for Tiger 15 of 53.5 out of 121. Not very impressive. The >above results vs Fritz 7 and Junior 7 are terrible. I don't know if it's the >result of "learning" by those two during the beta period or what. I doubt it's >that. It could just be bad luck but it started way back near the end of the >beta period. I have no explanation for the results, only the results >themselves. The first explanation to think about is that it is possible that tiger's computer was slower for some reason. I think that it may be productive if you have the average number of nodes per second for tiger and other programs. Uri
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.