Author: Jonas Bylund
Date: 23:38:45 10/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 13, 2003 at 19:15:52, James T. Walker wrote: >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 What hardware, books, ram etc.? A surprise to me is you have different ver. of the same engine, also where is the same engine list using long time controls for comparison??? Jonas
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.