Author: Rex
Date: 05:23:04 02/27/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 27, 2005 at 08:09:04, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On February 27, 2005 at 07:52:09, George Tsavdaris wrote: > >>On February 27, 2005 at 07:22:44, Sandro Necchi wrote: >> >>>>And this is my original question. Why should we NOT see a Shredder 9.01 free >>>>release based on some knowledged learned from IPCCC? Sure would be nice. >>> >>>Maybe after the match against Hydra...:-) >>> >>>Well, do not forget that we cannot test against Hydra while they do and they >>>have no money problems at all to test with any kind of harware. >>> >>>If we will improve the program, as we are planning, we may will make a Shredder >>>10 new realease or an upgrade to 9.0 as Stefan will decide later... >>> >>>First we need to improve the program and beat Hydra... >>> >> >> In my opinion and from what i have seen so far from "Shredder 9 + the used >>hardware" and "Hydra + 16 or 32 processors" is that the two >>Chess-playing-systems are about equal with Hydra having a slighly better >>knowledge on attacking the King. >> >>BUT since: >>A)Shredder's book was available for studying it and i don't think that the >>modification you played was something totally different..... >>B)Shredder 9 is available for testing and finding holes-weak parts at it and the >>exact Shredder 9 played this last tournament...... >>C)Shredder didn't played using 16 CPU's or 32 CPU's....... > >we used a quad processors. > >>D)Hydra isn't available for testing and finding holes-weak parts at it..... >>E)Hydra's book, even a modification of it, isn't available...... >> >>i think Shredder is far on top............ And since i didn't know that Shredder >>'s version that played against Hydra the 8 match and lost was a "buggy" >>(whatever this mean) version, i can strengthen my opinion about this >>matter....... > >OK, I can explain more what happened: > >the program part handling pieces exchange and pieces sacrifices was removed by >accident, so everytime the program was pondering moves involving that was >heavely handicapped or nearly blind. The deeper the program searched the bigger >the handicap was. >See the last game we lost to understand what we were facing and trying to avoid >in the openings...as you can see that was a major handicap. >In some games the handicap was (to me) of several hundreds of Elo points. In >other games more limited. > >Sandro >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>This kind of positions are not frequent, so to take a single game as "rule" is >>>>>wrong to me. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Remember Deep Blue in New York. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Sure I would like there to be such an event, but I am afraid it will not be. >>>>> >>>>>I believe there will be; maybe in summer. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Ernst. >>>>> >>>>>Sandro Interesting, Yes I do think its time for a rematch.
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.