Author: Chessfun
Date: 19:00:18 11/19/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 2005 at 20:47:39, Heinz van Kempen wrote: >On November 19, 2005 at 20:08:43, Chessfun wrote: > >> >>All Fruit 2.2 and 2.2.1 games at 40/40 >>Each played the exact same opponents 10x >>All original engine books, general ctg where none made. >>AMD XP 2600+ and AMD X2 4200+ 128 Mb 3, 4 and 5 person tablebases. >>All engines shown no minimum games >>Both Fruit versions 2.2 and 2.2.1 results will be combined in all future lists. >> >> Program Elo + - Games Score Av.Op. Draws >> >> 1 Fruit 2.2.1 : 2706 34 33 280 67.5 % 2579 36.4 % >> 2 Fruit 2.2 : 2705 32 31 280 67.3 % 2579 41.8 % >> 3 Fritz 9 : 2682 31 30 320 62.0 % 2596 37.8 % >> 4 Shredder 9 : 2665 29 29 340 63.5 % 2569 39.4 % >> 5 Shredder 8 : 2664 29 29 350 60.6 % 2590 37.1 % > >Hi Sarah, > >the top with hardly difference between Fruit 2.2 and Fruit 2.2.1, followed by >Fritz 9 and Shredder 9 looks somehow familiar and reminds me another rating list >I am watching from time to time :-). > >Best Regards >Heinz Yes there is no doubt that currently these engines are ahead of the field. It's about time maybe that others finally caught up since Shredder has been leading the way for a long time. I wish I had a more definitive idea on what the benefits of tablebases were. But it does seem a very minimal amount. Of course the way Fruit handles them is very different from say Shredder so maybe the result is somewhat expected. Combining them I now think makes sense, since none will now run games in future with 2.2 Sarah.
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.