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 0.01 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.