Author: Thomas Logan
Date: 14:03:31 09/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 15, 2005 at 16:42:29, Marc Lacrosse wrote: >On September 15, 2005 at 13:58:54, Thomas Logan wrote: > >>That is Sandro setting columbus egg vs Fruit >> >>last 3 games 2.5 points >> > >>score thus far >> >>THOMAS-KBZT8WLT, 120'/40+60'/20+30' 0 >> >> 123456 >>1 Shredder 9 011½11 4.5/6 >>2 Fruit 2.1 100½00 1.5/6 >> >>classical time control 256m hash 3,4,5 piece endgame tables - 16m table hash >>shredder 9.ctg and Fruit_ASv3.ctg & small_book.bin, learning, no pondering >>optomised books,windows xp home a64 3400 >> >>Tom > >Hi Tom, > >I have had a lot of tests with Sandro's Columbus Egg (at blitz time control) and >I repeat I find it to be a very interesting setting. > >But i am less convinced than ever regarding the eventual overall superiority of >Columbus Egg over shredder default settings. OK maybe Sandro's setting is weaker at blitz I'm trying to find its strength at classical time controls > >Presenting only a few games against Fruit default configuration gives only a >partial evaluation. I give the games as I play them One piece of the puzzle at a time I drew no conclusions about the programs ultimate strength >See what happened in my recent games (all involve Fruit WCC'2005) > >Both playing with the same neutral book, I had a first match between S9CE and >Fruit default config. > >Result was +11 =10 -9 for Fruit (53.3%). At what time control ? > >I then adapted fruit's UCI parameters to build an anti-Sandro config. > >This Fruit anti-Sandro won +14 =7 -9 against S9 columbus egg (58.3%). > >But this anti-sandro config was much worse against shredder 9 default config and >also against other opponents. That sometimes happens > >And the same was true for Sandro's config against other opponents (among them : >CM10 Berean, Ktulu 7a, Ruffian 210, Ruffian 105, Spike 1.0a, SlowChess blitz >WV2) > >After 850 games I have : >Shredder 9 : 2718 +/- 41 >Fruit WCCC : 2717 +/- 42 >Fruit WCCC anti-CE : 2703 +/- 59 >Shredder Columbus Egg : 2674 +/- 58 > >So my results do not confirm yours in my testing conditions (same book for all >and short timing). OK but I do not play with same book for both sides and play at long time controls different match parameters may lead to different results > >Have a look at CEGT tests tomorrow : you will have a big surprise at >intermediate time controls ... ok I will take a look Tom > >Regards > >Marc
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.