Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 11:02:25 02/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 03, 2004 at 12:11:30, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On February 03, 2004 at 11:15:56, Bigler wrote: > >>What's going on with this engine ? >> >>It look so strong during the Graz tournament. > > >but in graz they had different hardware. and few games. > > >>Now I have it and have set a double round tournament with the following engines >>: >>Deep Junior 8 >>Shredder 7.04 >>Hiarcs 9 >>Deep Fritz 8 >>Ruffian Leiden >>Ruffian 2 >> >>There is only 5 games left and the Shredder 8 result is the worst, even >>catasrophique. By the way, Deep Fritz 8 is not very good as well. > >to me this looks right. >My impression from shredder8 is that it is not really stronger. it is different. >it outsearches many search based programs, but has weaknesses when the opponent >has specific or much knowledge. >since many knowledge programs have a lack of search depth, sometimes shredder >can outsearch the knowledge programs too. but not that often. > >overall i do not see shredder beeing really superior anymore. > > >>First is Hiarcs 9 then Ruffian Leiden and far from all other engines is Shredder >>8. > >right. this would be my ranking too. >first hiarcs. > > > >>WHATS HAPPENING WITH SHREDDER 8 ? > > > >>It seems to search more deeply than Shredder 7.04 i.e. when Shredder 7.04 is at >>14 ply depth, Shredder 8 is at 17. > > >but it oversees things. thats the price. For post-mortem analyses, it seems that using multiple engines is a good idea because faults in one engine are cancelled out in another. The best method is typically found by one engine even if the rest fail to find it. This all assumes that adequate time is allowed. That is why I use multiple engines for post-mortem analyses of important games. Bob D.
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.