Author: Ryan B.
Date: 02:57:57 11/13/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 2005 at 05:44:58, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 13, 2005 at 04:57:19, Marc Lacrosse wrote: > >> >>> Score SB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>>------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 1: Zappa 5.0 / 6 17.00 X = = . . 1 1 1 . . . 1 . . . . >>> 2: Diep 4.5 / 6 16.00 = X 1 0 . . 1 1 . . 1 . . . . . >>> 3: The King 4.5 / 6 12.00 = 0 X . 1 . . 1 1 . . . . . . 1 >>> 4: Ktulu 4.0 / 6 11.75 . 1 . X = . . 0 = 1 . . . . 1 . >>> 5: Deep Sjeng 3.5 / 6 10.50 . . 0 = X = . . . 1 = 1 . . . . >>> 6: Gandalf 3.5 / 6 9.25 0 . . . = X . . = . 1 . 1 = . . >>> 7: Fruit 3.5 / 6 9.25 0 0 . . . . X . 1 1 . = . 1 . . >>> 8: Tao 3.0 / 6 8.50 0 0 0 1 . . . X . . . 1 . 1 . . >>> 9: Pro Deo 3.0 / 6 6.75 . . 0 = . = 0 . X . . . . 1 1 . >>>10: Homer 3.0 / 6 6.00 . . . 0 0 . 0 . . X 1 . 1 . 1 . >>>11: Neurosis 2.5 / 6 4.25 . 0 . . = 0 . . . 0 X . 1 . . 1 >>>12: XiniX 2.5 / 6 2.75 0 . . . 0 . = 0 . . . X . . 1 1 >>>13: Zzzzzz 2.5 / 6 2.00 . . . . . 0 . . . 0 0 . X = 1 1 >>>14: IsiChess 2.0 / 6 3.00 . . . . . = 0 0 0 . . . = X . 1 >>>15: Ayito 1.0 / 6 0.00 . . . 0 . . . . 0 0 . 0 0 . X 1 >>>16: Usurpator 0.0 / 6 0.00 . . 0 . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 X >> >>A few comments on the present state of affairs at the 25th Dutch computer chess >>open championship, mainly from a fruit-friend point-of-view. >> >>1.There is only one surprise in this tournament so far : the relatively >>disastrous results achieved by Fruit. > >I disagree >I do not think that it is a surprise. > > Other results seem quite normal with a few >>exceptions (ProDeo could be a bit higher and Tao lower in the list). >>But since Fruit 2.1 has been released, never did Fruit (2.1, wccc or 2.2) >>achieve such a disappointing result in any official public appearance. > > >It means that fruit was extremely lucky in other tournaments or had a clearly >better book that the opponents. > >With all respect to fruit >Fruit is not better than Deep Shredder with 4 processors but it scored better in >WCCC. > >It can be or because of luck or because you had better book than sandro. > >>At WCCC Fruit had finished 2nd with 77.3% against a stronger field. >>At CCTblitz Fruit finished equal first with 83.3%. >>Even playing with a non-tuned book, Fruit is presently leading the field at WBEC >>riederkerk with 68.3 %. >>Here Fruit has a miserable 58.3%¨performance so far and it has lost as many >>half-points in 6 games than in the whole stronger 11-games event in Reijkjavik. > >Fruit lost against the same opponents that it lost in WCCC. > >>OK Fruit has already played (and lost) against the two strongest opponents but >>it still has to meet The King, Ktulu, Deep Sjeng and/or Gandalf. If Fruit cannot >>manage to win its three remaining games this tournament will be a real black >>stone in Fruit's garden. > >I do not expect fruit to win the remaining games and I think 2/3 or 2.5/3 is not >a disaster for fruit. > >I see no reason to expect fruit to win the tournament when it supports only one >processor. > I agree, even if fruit is 50 elo stronger than Zappa or Shredder on one cpu good use of the extra 3 cpus would overcome the advantage (maybe +25 elo per cpu) >If we talk about the opponents they were able to learn from fruit open source so >they may be even stronger than the opponents in WCCC. > >Uri I agree again, it does not take long to learn by reading Fruits eval code. If people could read Zappas or Shredders eval functions we would have a better chance of beating them or tuning a program to beat them.
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.