Author: Odd Gunnar Malin
Date: 16:52:25 04/30/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 30, 2005 at 15:07:16, Derek Paquette wrote:
>The term 2500 fide elo positional and 2900 fide elo tactical still comes to mind
>when i think of people's opinions regarding programs, how does shredder 9 fair
>against this criticism,
>
>does it show more understanding of the game than past engines? or is it still
>lost in many positions and still getting hopelessly outmanouvered on ICC by
>grandmasters.
Hi.
I do some lecture from ImproveYourChess.com to get in shape for the summer
tournaments and one of this lecture is to solve 'a guess the move' type of test.
To see what an engine manage in these test I have run my favourite analyse
engines through the test I have done myself and here is the score.
Shredder 9 Tiger 2004 Gandalf 6 Me Max
Game 1 39 (75%) 28 (54%) 34 (65%) 32 (62%) 52
Game 2 42 (67%) 38 (60%) 41 (65%) 28 (44%) 63
Game 3 42 (63%) 31 (46%) 30 (45%) 31 (46%) 67
Game 4 46 (53%) 46 (53%) 34 (39%) 42 (48%) 87
Game 5 45 (78%) 40 (69%) 34 (59%) 32 (55%) 58
The computer was a 2GH Centrino laptop with Keep hash/learning etc. on and 512MB
hashtable size for each. The computer got 3 minutes for each move.
As you see on this table Shredder 9 scored highest in all games. Thoug, talking
about 2500 elo in positional strength seems a bit away from the thruth. I added
my score (Me) to the table to compare, and my rating is 1500.
A rough estimate of Daniel Kings suggestion for the score is:
>90% GM
>75% IM
>60% FM
>50% NM
>35% Strong clubplayer
>20% Average clubplayer
But since I'm a Average clubplayer these scores are most to please the pupil.
Odd Gunnar
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.