Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 17:55:22 10/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 13, 2003 at 19:10:37, Mike Byrne 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 > > >I am not sure if the this still true - but my short list of engines that always >seemed to to better at LTC than blitz (relative to itself): > >HIARCS >GANDALF > >The older Shredders might fall into this group as well (Not Shredder 7.0.4 -- >very good in Blitz) > >Tiger seems to play equally strong at any TC. > >Older Fritzes and Genius (especially) seem to favor fast time controls, weak CPU >etc. > >But a very weak engine at blitz (none of the above) was generally very weak at >LTC as well. > >I also think Dave Kittinger's Wchess engine (used in Novag products and perhaps >others) does very well in blitz/ weak processor settings - relative to how well >it will do in a LTC/ fast CPU settings. > >As far as analyzing a position where there are no killer combinations available >(quiet position) - my favorite engines to analyse are (alphabetical order): > >HIARCS >Shredder 7.04 >Tiger > > >For a mate finder - no engine is faster than CM9K with SS==12. Ruffian is also >pretty fast. I would probably add Rebel 12 to the list -- but the latest version does not work for me in Fritz GUI .....yet. Edward is working on a fix.
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.