Author: Uri Blass
Date: 16:35:19 08/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 23, 2005 at 17:55:55, A. Cozzie wrote: >>You say that "[Zappa] is a serious chess engine, not a blitzer". Are >>you, by any chance, implying that superb blitzers are not serious chess engines, >>or that serious chess engines are, as a rule, not superb blitzers? > >No. > >;) > >anthony anthony, I did not see a big difference in playing strength between 40/40 CEGT rating list and 40/4 CEGT rating list. Basically the top engines are best in both type of time control. If you think that zappa is relatively worse in blitz you will need to show us that it performs better at 40/40 and not at 40/4 Note that Zappa1.0 does not perform so bad in 40/4 in the following list http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/tabellen/blitzqualges.htm The programs that come after it seems to be near zappa1.0 strength at long time control Pharaon 3.3 Thinker 4.7a Scorpio 1.4 See the following list: http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/rangliste.html 25 Pharaon 3.3 2591 18 18 948 54.5 % 2560 33.5 % 32 Scorpio 1.3 2574 21 21 728 52.3 % 2557 33.8 % 33 Zappa 1.0 2571 15 15 1395 46.1 % 2598 35.1 % 36 Thinker 4.7a 2559 15 15 1321 45.6 % 2589 38.4 % Maybe not enough games are at blitz but it is certainly not correct that zappa1.0 is significantly better at slower time control. Maybe it is different for Zappa2 but you will need to prove it not by choosing different type of time control and different hardware(At least Crafty had problems in blitz because it could not get big speed up for many processors at blitz and maybe the same is the case for zappa). 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.