Author: stuart taylor
Date: 08:27:45 02/28/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 28, 2005 at 10:56:42, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 28, 2005 at 10:40:30, Peter Skinner wrote: > >>On February 28, 2005 at 05:41:23, stuart taylor wrote: >> >>>On February 28, 2005 at 04:11:01, Tony Hedlund wrote: >>> >>>After being roundly beaten by Shredder 7.04, in every test, Junior 9 has now >>>shown it's worth, and has slapped today's Shredder roundly in the face, >>>repeatedly! >>>S.Taylor >> >>I _could_ still lose the match by a slight margin, but no where near what >>happened with Shredder 7.04. >> >>I still think 7.04 is the strongest version of Shredder out. We will have to see >>how Shredder 9 does. >> >>Peter > >Shredder9 is leading 15-11 against Shredder7.04 in another match. >You cannot decide which version of shredder is the stronger based on one match. > But Shredder 9 must have new weaknesses somewhere, which Junior attacks. Anyway, I'm not interested in which engine is stronger, on average. I want to know that te engine I use, represents the best moves I will get from computer programs, up till 2005. And that is NOT the case with Shredder 9. (I can understand an occasional better move with another program, in one or two positions which might come up after many games, but not that you should be able to feel comfortable that Shredder 7.04 when playing Junior 9, has PROBABLY chosen the better move [than Shredder 9 has, when given the same position to analyze] ). S.Taylor >The main problem is that games are not independent events. > >Note that for me more interesting data is rating of the engine based on random >opening positions from GM games and no learning. > >At least in that case the expected error will be smaller. > >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.