Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 06:54:12 03/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 05, 2004 at 08:37:51, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On March 05, 2004 at 08:23:30, Albert Silver wrote: > >>On March 05, 2004 at 03:54:57, Afzal Siddique wrote: >> >>>Hello All, >>> >>>http://www.aceshardware.com/forum?read=105063596 >>> >>>Afzal >> >>I take it that this accusation can be substantiated? >> >>"DIEP is not at SSDF because i refused to pay them. it is a paid list. When you >>do not ship them a computer or 2 (say $10000) you cannot join in that list in >>such a way that they directly test your program. Instead they wait then till >>there is newer books from other programs that can kill you. I refused to do >>that. I would say now to Karlsson (head of the list) who asked me those 2 >>computers: "You are a surgeon, you can pay for your own hardware"." > >When i asked a few years ago whether i could put diep at SSDF, >Karlsson shipped me email that he could only garantuee diep to be quickly on the >list if i would ship him a computer or 2. "As we are in big lack of hardware". I >then heard from someone else he is a surgeon. > >>The following comment also needs a bit of clarifiying: >> >>"Further there gets used a lot of tricks in SSDF. The protocol to play other >>programs has a 100 tricks in order to fool you. >> >>Example if you play single cpu with an UCI engine against fritz8 at a single >>cpu, it will eat 80% system time on average versus your engine 20%." AFAIK the SSDF does not test on a single cpu ?! Furthermore your statement is complete nonsense. UCI engines and Chessbase engines get always between 96% and 99% system time in the recent Fritz GUI in matches with ponder OFF. Your statement is simply wrong for ponder on as well, but results with ponder ON on a single cpu are not interesting anyway. >All these tricks are there. Just try it yourself and measure. > >>The way it is phrased, one could easily end up thinking the SSDF actually uses >>single CPUs to play the matches, as opposed to two separate computers. > >I'm sure they play basically single computer now. Either that can have 2 >processors or 1. > >>I mean, you'd think that all UCI engines were immediately condemned, instead of >>the no. 1 in the SSDF list actually being a UCI version of an engine as is the >>case. > >Shredder interface has its own tricks. Sorry features. >In general less than chessbase but he has little choice of course. > >I do not know how SSDF tests shredder, whether they use the native shredder book >in shredderclassic or shredderbook in fritz + uci engine. > >In the latter game it would get toasted as it would get 1 MB hashtables. > >If not then chessbase has given order to not trick shredder with the 1MB trick. > >I did not test that latter. Perhaps some can try here. It's interesting to know >the motivation and tricks applied by chessbase. I try to keep updated. > Show me evidence that UCI engines get only 1 MB hashtables in engine matches. The 1 MB hashtable problem definitely exists but I never saw it happen in engine-engine matches. Michael >For now there is just too many tricks. And majority we cannot check even, >because the games are not there. > >> Albert
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.