Author: George Tsavdaris
Date: 05:54:07 07/08/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 08, 2005 at 05:36:24, Tord Romstad wrote: >On July 07, 2005 at 19:33:10, George Tsavdaris wrote: > >Yes. A big thanks to Jorge for playing these matches! > >>Unfortunatelly the >>results were such, that we can't conclude that Pharaon is better at FRC-Chess >>than it is at Chess against Glaurung, but anyway.......What the games show is >>that Pharaon is a bit stronger generally....... > >No, they don't even show that. For engines so close in playing strength, we >need many more games to make such conclusions. Damn! I knew that someone will say this:-) I was about to write that games indicate that Pharaon should be a bit stronger (of course indicate is meaningless also and any conclusion about the relative strength between these 2 can't be done, well actually it can, but with huge margins of error......) but i wanted to be short...... >The best data we have so far >concerning the relative strengths of Pharaon and Glaurung is the CEGT rating >list (slow time controls) > >http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/CEGT0507.html > >Pharaon 3.3 has 2594 after 93 games, while Glaurung 0.2.4 has 2593 after >126 games. Not really a big difference. :-) > >Of course, the margins of error are still big. The only thing we know so >far is that there is not a huge difference in playing strength between the >two engines in normal chess. > >In FRC the situation is of course even more unclear. My guess is that >Pharaon is significantly stronger, because Glaurung FRC was released >without any testing at all, and contains some very experimental and >probably unsound evaluation settings. > >Tord
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.