Author: Joachim Rang
Date: 04:14:20 06/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 22, 2005 at 07:07:00, Madhavan wrote: >On June 22, 2005 at 07:03:44, Joachim Rang wrote: > >>On June 22, 2005 at 06:34:42, Madhavan wrote: >> >>>On June 22, 2005 at 04:37:31, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On June 22, 2005 at 03:39:54, Sally Weltrop wrote: >>>> >>>>>Spare me the lecture about we need a million games. You see a boxer and you know >>>>>just by how he fights and who he is fighting that he is got that something >>>>>"special". >>>>> >>>>>Remember my words cause they will ring true. >>>>> >>>>>That's without learning capacity and no EGTB's >>>> >>>>I do not expect fruit without learning to be in the top 5 of the ssdf today. >>> >>>Can be. >>> >>>>I expect Shredder9,Shredder8,Shredder7.04,Junior9 and Deep Fritz8 to have bigger >>>>ssdf rating. >>> >>>Its just ridiculous if SSDF tests different version,why not let them test all >>>shredder version instead of just 3? >>>unforstunately,we wouldnt expect fruit to play there.SSDF testers were good good >>>at reporting result,but they wouldnt take freewares,atleast not when the freebie >>>dont look appealing to them. >>> >>>>I do not claim that all of them are better than fruit(Fritz and Junior may be >>>>weaker) but considering the fact that fritz and Junior use learning I expect >>>>them to have bigger ssdf rating. >>> >>>they are of equal rating,Fruit just needs another update to overtake them.It >>>would seem difficult.so far testers have not reprted fruit 2.1's results on >>>longer time control. >>> >> >>I think 40 moves in 40 minutes does qualify as longer time control: >> >>http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/Fruit_21.htm > >Thanks for the link > >But... > >I see only Fruit 2.0's result there,seems that the tester has not tested the >latest one. >13 CM 10000 Yoda 2619 9,0 8,0 17 47,1 2598,4 44173 44523 Charles Heinz >14 Spike 0.9a 2610 6,0 16,0 22 72,7 2769,1 60920 57420 Heinz >15 Fruit 2.0 2605 0 >16 SOS 5 2600 7,0 13,0 20 65,0 2705,0 54100 52000 Michael >17 Pseudo 0.7c 2598 6,0 10,0 16 62,5 2685,5 42968 41568 Heinz >18 Deep Sjeng 1.6 > no you are reading the table wrong. Tested is Fruit 2.1 and Fruit 2.0 is marked since it is the reference against the value "advance" is calculated. You see also 0 games against Fruit 2.0 since they do not tester engines against themselve. regards Joachim here without the Elocalculation: http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/tabellen/fruit2201.htm see als: http://talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?432679
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.