Author: Paul Doire
Date: 21:11:52 01/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2004 at 00:05:01, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On January 19, 2004 at 22:09:57, Paul Doire wrote: > >>On January 19, 2004 at 21:51:45, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >> >>>On January 19, 2004 at 21:35:00, Ed Panek wrote: >>> >>>>On January 19, 2004 at 18:05:35, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 19, 2004 at 16:47:04, Paul Doire wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 19, 2004 at 16:26:57, Paul Doire wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>PIII 450, WINSE, 256 RAM >>>>>>>CHESSBASE GUI, 32 MB RAM HASH, >>>>>>>PONDER OFF, FRITZ7.CTG >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Fritz book used for its size other tourneys utilized smaller >>>>>>>higher ELO books. >>>>>>>Also Shredder 704 was using special settings Haddad 1.2DP5, >>>>>>>which I obtained from >>>>>>>http://members.lycos.co.uk/chesslovers/zied/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I also ran identical tourney on Celeron 542 Mhz >>>>>>>with Shredder at default. Post to follow. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Ratings were assigned using Fritz 8 at 2753 per SSDF. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Top Ten SSDF, Fritz7ctg, Shr1.2DP5 ,5mi 2004 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 >>>>>>>1 Chess Tiger 15.0 2771 +3 *** ½1½ 11½ ½½½ 01½ 0½½ ½11 10½ 101 110 >>>>>>>16.5/27 219.50 >>>>>>>2 Fritz 8 2771 +3 ½0½ *** 0½1 11½ 1½½ ½½0 111 ½½0 11½ 110 >>>>>>>16.5/27 213.25 >>>>>>>3 Deep Fritz 8 2771 +3 00½ 1½0 *** 0½½ ½10 11½ 111 ½11 101 101 >>>>>>>16.5/27 207.75 >>>>>>>4 Ruffian 2.0.0 2714 0 ½½½ 00½ 1½½ *** ½00 ½½1 ½½0 ½11 ½11 ½01 >>>>>>>14.0/27 >>>>>>>5 Shredder 7.04 2703 0 10½ 0½½ ½01 ½11 *** ½01 ½01 ½10 0½½ ½10 >>>>>>>13.5/27 >>>>>>>6 Deep Fritz 7 2681 -1 1½½ ½½1 00½ ½½0 ½10 *** 00½ ½½½ ½½1 ½½½ >>>>>>>12.5/27 169.75 >>>>>>>7 Junior 8 2681 -1 ½00 000 000 ½½1 ½10 11½ *** 0½1 ½½½ 111 >>>>>>>12.5/27 153.00 >>>>>>>8 Hiarcs 9 2658 -1 01½ ½½1 ½00 ½00 ½01 ½½½ 1½0 *** 001 ½½½ >>>>>>>11.5/27 >>>>>>>9 Deep Junior 8 2647 -2 010 00½ 010 ½00 1½½ ½½0 ½½½ 110 *** ½01 >>>>>>>11.0/27 >>>>>>>10 The King 3.23 2635 -2 001 001 010 ½10 ½01 ½½½ 000 ½½½ ½10 *** >>>>>>>10.5/27 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Average elo: 2703 <=> Category: 19 >>>>>>>gm = 9.72 m = 4.32 >>>>>> >>>>>>Second tournament >>>>>>Shredder 704 default >>>>>>Ratings were assigned using Fritz 8 at 2753 per SSDF. >>>>>> >>>>>>Note Elo top to bottom difference 136 1st tournament >>>>>>Note Elo top to bottom difference 120 2nd tournament >>>>>> >>>>>>Top Ten SSDF, Fritz7ctg,ShredDef, 5min- 2004 >>>>>> >>>>>>Top Ten SSDF, Fritz7ctg,ShredDef, 5min- 2004 >>>>>> >>>>>> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 >>>>>>1 Shredder 7.04 2764 +2 *** ½½1 ½½1 11½ 0½½ 10½ ½½½ ½01 11½ 0½1 >>>>>>16.0/27 >>>>>>2 Fritz 8 2753 +1 ½½0 *** 10½ 111 ½11 0½0 010 ½11 1½½ 01½ >>>>>>15.5/27 205.00 >>>>>>3 Hiarcs 9 2753 +1 ½½0 01½ *** ½10 ½½½ 111 ½½0 0½1 110 ½11 >>>>>>15.5/27 201.25 >>>>>>4 Chess Tiger 15.0 2742 0 00½ 000 ½01 *** ½1½ ½½½ 1½1 01½ 111 11½ >>>>>>15.0/27 >>>>>>5 Deep Fritz 8 2730 +1 1½½ ½00 ½½½ ½0½ *** ½½1 10½ 11½ 0½1 101 >>>>>>14.5/27 >>>>>>6 Junior 8 2708 0 01½ 1½1 000 ½½½ ½½0 *** ½1½ 111 10½ 0½0 >>>>>>13.5/27 >>>>>>7 Deep Junior 8 2686 -1 ½½½ 101 ½½1 0½0 01½ ½0½ *** 01½ 00½ 101 >>>>>>12.5/27 >>>>>>8 Deep Fritz 7 2652 -2 ½10 ½00 1½0 10½ 00½ 000 10½ *** ½0½ 111 >>>>>>11.0/27 146.00 >>>>>>9 Ruffian 2.0.0 2652 -2 00½ 0½½ 001 000 1½0 01½ 11½ ½1½ *** ½0½ >>>>>>11.0/27 144.75 >>>>>>10 The King 3.23 2640 -2 1½0 10½ ½00 00½ 010 1½1 010 000 ½1½ *** >>>>>>10.5/27 >>>>>> >>>>>>Average elo: 2708 <=> Category: 19 >>>>>>gm = 9.72 m = 4.32 >>>>>> >>>>>>Looks like Shredder 7.04 Default is stronger per this group of games. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>No, you cannot conclude that. You do not have enough games for any statistical >>>>>evidence. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Christophe >>>> >>>> >>>>Statistically speaking he can make any conclusion he wishes..its just that his >>>>degree of confidence will be lower. :-) >>>> >>>>Ed >>> >>>I usually refrain from pointing such things. The level of understanding >>>mathematical topics is not high here and pointing such things out does not seem >>>to remedy the situation. >>> >>>For a very similar example to yours, see: >>> >>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?343165 >>> >>>I usually prefer to just sit back and chuckle. :-) >> >>Dear ...ahem chuckler.....pleaaase. >>I never made statistical signifance of these findings....I claimed simply some >>conclusions based on "these games"...a tad more than 5 ...so math is obviously >>not your strength either. This is my opinion based on this small sampling. >>Sounds like laughing one, you may need a remedial reading lesson as well as a >>math lesson, although I am sure this will not remedy the situation..I prefer to >>sit back and laugh. :-) > >My comment wasn't really about you at all. However, your paranoia seems to be >insisting otherwise. > >The point of EP's comment was that it is perfectly reasonable to draw >conclusions from a small sample, even though the confidence in the conclusion >won't be particularly high. > >The ones that made me chuckle were CT and RH, since rejecting the conclusion out >of hand is definitely not reasonable. > >So you see, until your response to me, you had emerged unscathed only to fall on >your own sword at the last moment. Ok I understand now, please ignore next post. Regards, Paul
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.