Author: Chessfun
Date: 01:07:35 02/11/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 10, 2006 at 18:13:33, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 10, 2006 at 17:30:10, Roger D Davis wrote: > >>On February 10, 2006 at 15:55:55, Russell wrote: >> >>>I dont agree with the list. H10 Hypermodern is not stronger than Fritz 9 nor is >>>S9 sronger than Fritz 9. >> >> >>They're testing with 1200 megahertz AMDs, right? Perhaps at that low a speed, >>the rankings of the programs breaks out differently. >> >>Roger > >Low speed? > >120/40 for 1200 Mhz AMD with ponder on is clearly higher level than 40/40 for 2 >ghz with ponder off(CEGT conditions). >I do not see reason to defend Fritz. >People who complain probably never tested it at slow time control and tested it >mainly at blitz. CCRL tested it at 4040 on AMD 3800+ and it is stronger IMO than shown by the SSDF results. I think it will increase in the SSDF as more games are played. http://kd.lab.nig.ac.jp/chess/CCRL-4040/rating-table-all.shtml >It is possible that the picture in blitz is simply different and blitz on faster >hardware is not equivalent to 120/40 on A1200 > >Note that comparing results of CEGT with SSDF also does not make sense because >conditions are different. Then why compare them? The poster simply stated that Fritz is stronger than as shown he never mentioned at blitz. >Different opening book >Different ponder on/ponder off > >This may be enough to explain slightly different results. If you now wish to look at the different results of SSDF and CEGT of course the different books, ponder and large time control difference is alone enough of an explaination for differences. But again the original poster was never comparing either. Sarah
This page took 0.01 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.