Author: Uri Blass
Date: 10:25:28 09/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 07, 2004 at 12:06:03, Christopher Morgan wrote: >Eduard, > >Interesting results so far. Please post the settings. > >In recent tournaments posted here Aristarch 4.50 has had very strong results. >On my AMD 64 3000+, 200MB hash, at 40' + 30", no tablebases (Pro Deo can’t use >TBs), I have a 30 game match in Shredder 8 CB GUI, alternating colors, ponder >off, Pro Deo 1.0 (Rebel 2 setting) v Aristarch 4.50 using the 15 Fischer Random >Chess openings where the king and rooks (only) are in their classical starting >chess positions so that normal rules of castling apply. CB/engines not set up >to play true FRC, however, by using the 15 selected positions only you do get >true FRC games. After ten games it’s 8-2 in favor of Pro Deo: Pro Deo 6 wins, 4 >draws, and no losses. Average length of the games is 64 moves which adds an >additional 32 minutes to each engine clock making max game time for each >engine’s thinking time about 72 minutes on average. I understand that both Pro >Deo and Aristarch play better at longer time controls. It is the case for most engines. Only engines with serious bugs play worse at long time control. I understand what you mean but if ProDeo and Aristarch perform relatively better than most engines at longer time control then I see it as a weakness of the other engines and not as a special strength of ProDeo and Aristarch. I know that movei has a poor order of moves that should cause problems at long time control(I do not compare it to other engines but compare it to what is possible to do) and the fact that it does not perform significantly worse than other engines at longer time control means that other engines are also weak. 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.