Author: James T. Walker
Date: 16:15:52 10/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 13, 2003 at 14:57:35, Jonas Bylund wrote: >On October 13, 2003 at 14:42:45, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: > >>On October 13, 2003 at 14:36:09, Jonas Bylund wrote: >> >>>On October 13, 2003 at 14:19:14, Christophe Theron wrote: >>> >>>>On October 13, 2003 at 13:09:03, Charles Roberson wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> You make the statement that Diep is a positional engine and you chose it based >>>>>on that. So, why did you run G/5 matches? At G/5 tactics and search depth >>>>>is crucial. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>I would like to bring to your attention that tactics and search depth are >>>>crucial at any time controls in chess. >>>> >>>>Showing dimishing returns from increased search depth is so difficult that in >>>>practice there is little difference between blitz and long time controls. >>>> >>>>If engine A gets a beating at blitz, expect it to get the same beating if you >>>>repeat the match with long time controls. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Christophe >>> >>>Now that is not my experience at all, some engines do seem to be much better at >>>long time controls than at blitz and also the opposite is the case, however it >>>seems that engines that do better at blitz TC's don't have the same margin of >>>difference. >>> >>>Jonas >> >> >>Jonas, >> >>this _is_ an interesting issue, I admit. However, a very quick glance at the top >>section of the SSDF list will tell you that the best blitzers are up there, and >>the games played by the SSDF are tournament control games. I can draw a simple >>conclusion here. Naturally, there might be some conspicious exceptions... Could >>you please name a program that does extremely poorly at blitz and extremely well >>at longer time controls? >> >>Rgds. >> >>Djordje > > >Maybe not extremely poorly, but Gandalf is an example of a top engine which do >not do well in blitz games compared to how well it does in classic and longer >time controls. (Gandalf is still one of my preferred engines for LONG analysis) > >If you look at the playchess.com rating lists you will find that the top rated >engines are Deep Fritz 7 and Shredder 7.04. Now Shredder is another example of >an engine that, atleast used to do much better at long time controls, it seems >that margin has shrunk considerably, but still remains an issue. If it wheren't >for dual amd's and xeon's Shredder probably wouldn't be a first choice for many >of the users on playchess.com. > >My point about shredder is that i don't think it would top any blitz lists on >equal hardware. > >The point that CT makes is in theory the "right" approach i think, but in >reality things looks different. > >Regards >Jonas Here is my "Top 10" from my blitz database of over 19000 games. See any surprises? All games on equal hardware using auto232 and almost all are G/5min. 1 Fritz 8 2489 2127 2 Shredder 7.04 2489 1171 3 Fritz 7 2474 3844 4 Shredder 7 2470 1140 5 Shredder 7.04C 2468 328 6 Chess Tiger 15 2462 2130 7 Chess Tiger 14.0 2456 2895 8 Hiarcs 9 2450 722 9 Hiarcs8 Bareev 2440 116 10 Gambit Tiger 2.0 2425 838
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.