Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:22:46 09/16/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 16, 2005 at 10:39:31, Alex Shalamanov wrote: >On September 16, 2005 at 06:00:39, Uri Blass wrote: > >>I think that your information is misleading and you need to show me a tournament >>in the last years when Tunc performed better than van Oosterom. > >BTW, no-one is comparing Kasym's results with whoever was before him, be it >Kaspi or Kramnik. So I'd rather not do the same thing. ;) The difference is that van Oosterom won championship after Tunc. >> >>I think that 11/14 is better than 12/16 >Oh, really? I thought he should win it 100% score, were the hardware matter so >weighty or , at least, repeat Umansky's result (7/8) made in a champion's >tourney. You can expect more draws when the level get higher. UMansky's result was in the past and the opponent got better thanks to consulting better software. > >>4)I did not say that van Oosterom may want Zappa to play for him but only that >>he can use it as a tool to improve his results and I am sure that chess programs >>and better hardware can help to improve the results of players. >> >>Uri > >The hardware counts little,if CC players have poor guts. software and hardware are an important tool to help you to get more points and 1/2 point more in 10 games is important. You're likely to trust >the silicon monsters too much, ain't ya? I think that the silicon monsters become stronger every year and it is clear that using the best software is productive. And Zappa is not the best software for >a CC player. You wanna know which is #1? Of course, Hiarcs is, like Anand >believes. So I just share his opinion. >Alex Zappa2 is not available so I do not see how people can compare between Zappa2 and Hiarcs to say that hiarcs is better. Based on rating lists Hiarcs seems to be good mainly at blitz(not enough data to be sure) and the main use of computers in correspondence games is to give them hours to analyze when you sleep or busy in other things so hiarcs does not seem to me good at long time control. blitz list: http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/eloblitz.html 2 Toga II 1.0 2755 26 26 629 71.8 % 2592 20.2 % 3 Shredder 9 2750 26 26 640 71.2 % 2593 20.5 % 5 Fritz 8 2716 25 25 640 66.9 % 2594 23.1 % 6 Hiarcs 9 2716 25 24 588 65.7 % 2603 28.4 % 7 Junior 9 2696 24 24 640 64.2 % 2595 24.4 % 8 Fruit 2.1 2683 24 24 629 62.6 % 2594 25.6 % 40/40 time control list(at the end improvement in elo relative to blitz when shredder is fixed to have 2750): http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/rangliste.html 1 Shredder 9 2750 11 11 2993 68.4 % 2616 30.8 % = 2 Toga II 1.0 2722 21 21 665 60.6 % 2647 36.1 % -33 3 Fruit 2.1 2712 12 12 2274 61.2 % 2632 34.9 % +29 4 Fritz 8 Bilbao 2708 13 13 1958 60.4 % 2635 30.3 % -8 5 Junior 9 2689 12 12 2141 59.3 % 2624 31.8 % -7 6 Hiarcs 9 2668 11 11 2394 55.5 % 2630 35.7 % -48 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.