Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 10:37:13 01/11/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2006 at 13:35:18, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On January 11, 2006 at 12:53:02, Peter Skinner wrote: > >>On January 11, 2006 at 10:15:12, stuart taylor wrote: >> >>>Sandro has been making it absolutely clear, that the minimum aim is to make it >>>atleast 50 elo above the best, which is Rybka, and Rybka will yet be better. So >>>Shredder 10 would HAVE to be, without exageration, a clear 150 elo points better >>>than now, easily. (or, 150-200) >>>S.Taylor >> >>Sandro has also make it absolutely clear that each of the previous versions were >>a certain elo better than the previous and that just didn't end up being true. > >Peter, > >sorry but you are VERY superficial AND WRONG with this statement: > >1. Shredder 8 was stronger than Shreder 7.04 if tested in UCI version which SSDF >did not and using a more updated book which was not available with the CB >version. Now I was telling 40-50 points stronger than 7.04 UCI as 25 being for >the UCI and the updated book. > >2. This score was the one that was seen by whom tested the UCI version and >reported here too. > >3. I also mentioned that these were estimated data as I did not have time enough >to make very many test games...now after some years the difference between 7.04 >UCI and 8.0 CB is 4 points which added to 25 makes 29 so not so far away from >what I reported...11 points are not so much as you cannot see them in the >games... > >4. For Shredder 9 I was talking about 30 points as estimation even if I said >that I did not want to tell this data. Now considering that this engine has been >the leader for so long and that everybody tested against it it is clear that the >actual elo is suffering from this. So, since it is 13 points now I think my >estimation was quite good! > >> >>Now suddenly Shredder is going to be 150 - 200elo stronger than version 9? LOL! > >You need to understand that this for us is a must and not advertisement...I did >not say we have the program already 150 points stronger or 200, but that we are >working a lot on it to reach that goal... > >Do you find anything claimed wrong on this? > >> >>I will bet against that anyday. > >You are going to loose all you have one day, so my suggestion is to think more >before making those statements!:-)) > >> >>If you believe this hype, I have a bridge to sell you. And yes it is the one I >>have previously sold several times here :) Who says it can't have more than one >>owner? :) > >Pls. take note that we will sell you the bridge connecting Sicily if we reach >the goal we are working on and you will have to buy it as you esposed yourself >to the world with this claim!:-) > >Seriously speaking everybody can state anything, but if you claim about false >statements on someone you need to be clear and precise otherwise everybody will >be laughing at you and this is also not deserved by someone which has devoted so >much time to this field as only very few people did not only from a time spent >but also as seriously talking on it. > >> >>Peter > >Sandro
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.