Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 10:32:59 01/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2003 at 07:55:11, Sune Fischer wrote: >On January 21, 2003 at 15:45:56, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>Here you are right but let's not give up so early, I bet that one of the two is >>better in the longer run. And I am sure it is - - - - - wait a minute.... it's - >>- - - Fritz! Chess Tiger is for French people, you know! On holidays I read >>Science et Vie and there in that Journal of France Christophe had the chance to >>make a lot of noise :) for his product, as if it had won anything. I planned to >>write a message about it but then, what for, France is not a leading chess >>nation after all, neither Guadeloupe or Africa. No need to colonialize the whole >>world with Fritz. Enough to know that t's the best. So, like Czub I prefer the >>NO GAME judgment. Fritz is better. >> >>:) >> >>Rolf Tueschen > >I agree with Dann, it makes very little sense to pickpoint a winner if they are >too close. > >For example, an engine (as a whole product package) is a complicated piece of >software. You have different books, different kinds of learning, the pool of >players keep changing not to mention the hardware. > >Imagine for instance one engine that has book learning playing against one that >doesn't, that could offset quite a rating gap. >Or what if the hardware is NUMA or a palmpilot gizmo, surely Fritz would not be >a very good engine there. > >-S. But I agree with you on these points. Only - - what does it mean? For SSDF for instance. Are they taking care of all these factors? Of course NOT! But I don't want to open another debate about SSDF. Was just a good opportunity to point out. You know what I would like to read? From our experts? Something like: Folks, the actual progs have really some new things. Fritz comes to a depth of XXX, Tiger and Shredder have outstanding booklearning, because look at this ...., JUNIOR however is the first prog, that .... You know what I mean, you can never read it. WHY? Very simple. Because we don't have real chess journalists for computerchess. Either they explain features, ok, then they compare a bit, but mostly in the style "Rebel has not variations in his notation, so Fritz is better in that respect." But that has NOTHING to do with strength or strength of features that are important for overall strength, exactly what you mentioned. Not one single expert! Ok, we have other 'players' among the testers who are happy to publish results of tournaments, with NO explanation on a higher level AT ALL, just impressing by their 'numbers' of games for different engines, but don't expect too much about such questions you mentioned, I remember someone who examined PONDER ON PONDER OFF, but he also simply presented games and results, but no discussion of the results. Perhaps they describe single games of their matches with words. But they are incapable of giving a sound comparison because they are either weaker chessplayers or not enough scientifically educated to be able to work with multi-factor situations. Of course such knowledge does exist. Maybe among the programmers themselves. But then it is treated like military secrets. It's a pity. I am sure that I didn't describe all aspects even now. Rolf Tueschen
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.