Author: Kurt Utzinger
Date: 10:39:07 09/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 07, 2004 at 12:32:20, David Dahlem wrote:
>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.
>>
>>This match should be a good test of pure engine strength.
>
>I'm not so sure about this last statement. I think engines are programmed to
>play from the standard start position. For example, they are rewarded for
>advancing the center pawns, controlling the center, etc. which might not be best
>in FRC!!
>
>Regards
>Dave
Hi Dave
I fully agree with your statement. FRC is different from
classical chess and may not be the correct way to compare
the playing strength in matches with classical chess.
Kurt
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.