Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 17:59:15 06/16/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 16, 2005 at 20:17:12, Drexel,Michael wrote: >On June 16, 2005 at 16:55:53, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On June 16, 2005 at 03:47:53, Drexel,Michael wrote: >> >>>I dont buy it. >>>The engines had to play all kind of weird stuff. >>>For example Shredder had to play the positions after 1.d4 b5 2.e4 a6 or 1.e4 b6 >>>2.d4 e6 with black and several times 1.b4 and 1.g4 with white. >> >>Shredder used its own book and learning files (or possibly it was pure >>learning?). Shredder 9 UCI was used with all defaults. Games were played under >>Arena. > >I don`t have the UCI version of Shredder 9 but I thought Shredder can not use >it`s own book under Arena. >I honestly don`t think the new Shredder book plays lines like 1.d4 e5? or 1.d4 >b6 2.e4 b5? with black. > >> >>>Fruit-massy-intel-profile even had to play one time 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5? and was >>>lost in a few moves. >>>Your test is flawed. >> >>Amazing fruit did so well with a bad book. Imagine what could be accomplished >>with a good one. > >I doubt it`s performance would be only 25 points worse than Shredders >performance if both had used a good one. The error bars are swimming pools, and so I really have no idea how strong Fruit is now. Time will tell, I imagine.
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.