Author: stuart taylor
Date: 12:02:59 10/29/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2005 at 16:44:25, stuart taylor wrote: >On October 26, 2005 at 08:25:53, stuart taylor wrote: > >>On October 23, 2005 at 15:53:36, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >> >>>On October 23, 2005 at 15:43:21, stuart taylor wrote: >>> >>>>On October 23, 2005 at 12:07:50, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 23, 2005 at 11:23:00, stuart taylor wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In matches between the two engines, Junior 9 did atleast as good as Fruit 2.2 >>>>>>against Shredder 9. >>>>>>I always believe we need to compare relative things, in order to see a better >>>>>>picture of different programs' strengths and weaknesses. Fruit is slightly >>>>>>better vs other programs too, which junior is slightly less with. >>>>>>S.Taylor >>>>> >>>>> Where does Junior9 better than Fruti 2.2 >>>>> - results >>>>> - time control >>>>> Thanks for more details ... >>>>> Regards >>>>> Kurt [http://www.utzingerk.com] >>>> >>>>I have not the time to search it out now, nor the details in front of me. So I >>>>do not insist on it if you say I'm wrong. I also appologise if I was wrong. >>>>But, from memmory, I was sure that Junior 9 often came out slightly above >>>>Shredder 9 in several "matches", between those two engines (playing EACH OTHER) >>>>alone/explicitly. Not in general. >>>>I was always looking at the longer time controls, not blitz. >>>>S.Taylor >>> >>> >>> Hi Stuart >>> You are surely not wrong in so far as Junior 9 is a >>> tough opponent for Shredder 9 at longer time control. >>> See also [http://www.utzingerk.com/shredder9_test.htm] >>> But Shredder 9 has almost ever the better results than >>> Junior 9 vs other engines. >>> Regards >>> Kurt >> >>Obviously! >>I wanted to bring attention to whatever it is that made Junior very tough for >>Shredder, which must have been a strength in Junior which was exploiting a >>(minor) weakness in Shredder. >>And did Fruit do something towards this end? >>And will Shredder 10 repair this "weakness" (as I have asked about before). >>Regards >>S.Taylor > >So after I justified myself, after you humbling me with your slight outburst >(And I HAVE often mentioned this matter before and got little reaction from >anyone), can you not atleast acknowledge the idea, or say something about what >_I_ wanted to discuss? >Regards, >S.Taylor Well, I got no response from that one, and was probably too far down the page. So, I suppose this subject might come up again, with my comments and his outburst and my humbly justifying myself, and again, without any feedback about my original request. (this was atleast the third time going through all this!) Ah well! S.Taylor
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.