Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:22:06 08/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 01, 2004 at 16:35:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 31, 2004 at 23:14:28, Bruce Humphrey wrote: > >>On July 31, 2004 at 16:53:46, Eduard Nemeth wrote: >> >>>Question: >>> >>>Shredder 8 have 2818 SSDF Elo on AMD 1,2 GHz, right? Yes! >>> >>>Which SSDF-ELO have then Shredder 8 on Dual Xeon 3 GHz? >>> >>>2900? Or more? >>> >>>:-)) >>> >>>Eduard >> >>Yes, a 2900 that is blind to the fact that a rook locked in by pawns is worth 0 >>(or maybe 1) and not 4.88 at depth 24 (I'm sure during the game my Shredder was >>evaluating 4.6...) as Shredder evaluates in end position in game 1. Well, other >>software gives even bigger advantage to white! >> >>During the game I thought black was going to win the moment Kiriakov plays b5... >>he did mention just the move before "b5 only plan. White can block with Rb5 and >>obvious draw", but Shredder is blind to the fact that yes, it wins 1 pawn but in >>exchange of losing his rooks mobility. The position is really complicated around >>move 82... what pawn does black take, central or h (via Nf2+-Nxh3)? How does >>this affect everything? Well, humans (and even more at 6am local time in >>Krasnoyarsk and with not much time left) tend to have trouble in the >>complications. A wonderful draw by GM Kiriakov. This makes it (as far as I know) >>Shredder 8 vs Kiriakov +0-0=4 >> >>I'm counting Smursky's games too... all 4 games vs dual or better machines. >> >>Maybe next one to try should use Tiger or Hiarcs. Or even Gambit Tiger or Junior >>set in Attack mode. I personally would love it to be Rebel 12. :-) >> >>Here is the position tested in various programs... Very curious is the eval >>difference between hiarcs 9 for PC and Hiarcs 9.46 for Palm!!! I thought they >>where almost exactly the same, but obviously, 9.46 has been tweaked a lot (in >>knowledge ?). That, usually, should be for good, but it seems not for this >>position... >> >>comp depth eval >>-------- ----------- ------ >>Fritz 8 depth 20/20 4.38 >>Ruffian ca71 depth 18 4.67 >>Shredder 8 depth 25 4.89 >>Rebel 12 depth 20 4.97 >>wCrafty 19 ca71 depth 18 5.08 >>Gothmog 1 beta7 depth 17 5.40 >>Genius 7 depth 17-28 5.51 >>Hiarcs 9 depth 16/33 5.99 !! >>Dragon ca71 depth 12 6.02 >>Crafty 19.14 cb depth 18/25 6.38 >>Junior 8 depth 24 6.39 >>Tiger 15 ca71 depth 20 6.52 >>Tiger 14 cb depth 17 6.73 >>Hiarcs 9.46 depth 15 7.69 !! (353sec taken) > > >the data above is flawed in a basic way. The absolute value of any score is not >important. IE I could do a "score = score - 500" in Crafty, and it would play >_exactly_ the same but with a score that is 5 pawns less than expected. > >It is a mistake to compare evaluations. What is comparable is to pick position >X, and see what a program thinks, and then position Y and see what it thinks, >and look at the _difference_ between those to scores as the net gain when going >from X to Y. That is what contains actual information, not the static absolute >score. It is also not correct because the difference may be bigger if you multiply the scores by 2 inspite of playing the same moves. Uri
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.