Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 08:51:15 01/12/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2006 at 11:43:28, Marc Lacrosse wrote: >Not so long ago (one year maybe), when Shredder 9 was an undisputed leader of >the field, V. Pittlik published an interesting analysis showing that shredder >was an extremely fast evaluator : when analysing a series of difficult epd test >positions, shredder was not only one of those who solved the largest number of >quizzes when a long thinking time was allowed but it distinguished itself mostly >by a considerable superiority over all other programs when very short thinking >time was afforded per position. >This correlated very well with the number of brilliant victories won by shredder >in blitz tournaments. > >As I wondered how the newer stars would perform from this point-of-view, I >selected 87 difficult positions within various well-known epd test-suites >(ECMGCP, LPTII, ...). >I had them analysed by six programs at 10 seconds / position and then at 180 >seconds /position on a Pentium IV 2200Mhz PC. >The programs were Rybka 1.0 beta 32, Shredder 9 UCI, Fruit 2.2, Toga II 1.1a, >Ktulu 7.0a and Gandalf 6.0. > >For each program I evaluated the ratio between the number of positions solved at >10 seconds and the number of positions solved with 3 minutes thinking time per >position. > >This ratio is : > >Rybka 57 % >Shredder 57 % >Gandalf 55 % >Ktulu 53 % >Toga 39 % >Fruit 36 % > >So we see that Rybka is one of the fastest searchers (and its superiority should > specially pronounced at blitz) whereas Fruit and Toga are incredibly weaker >when a too short thinking time is given. > >Marc > >PS : the absolute number of positions solved by the diferent engines with 180 >seconds per move is : Rybka and shredder 68, Toga and Fruit 61, Gandalf 60, >Ktulu 55. I want to praise you for this posting. Very well put and with all the neccessary factors. Perhaps you could step back the next time and think about a short add in the end where you invite others to examine a special question or such. But overall you made a brilliant contribution on a very good formal level. What the content is concerned I want to stay out politeley because I have no possibilities to contribute anything valuable because of lack of most of the mentioned programs. But it's also clear to me that such a research is better than just posting results of autoplayed games in Blitz. Nothing against that but it's not so valuable as what you have sent.
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.