Author: Uri Blass
Date: 01:33:59 02/11/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 11, 2006 at 04:19:04, Chessfun wrote: >On February 11, 2006 at 04:07:35, Chessfun wrote: > >>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 > >I could also add the latest selective search rating lists indicate that Fritz 9 >is stronger which may have also been something considered by the original >poster. Whereas you assumed a comparison with blitz controls. > >PC PROGRAMS >Ratings are calibrated to Pentium4 machines running at 1200MHz > >.............BCF Elo.. Program > >268 2755 Fritz9 (nearly 400 games played) >267 2742 Fruit2.2 WCCC05 (nearly 600 games played) >267 2737 Shredder9 >266 2732 Shredder8 >263 2705 Junior9 (Deep Junior9 add +40 Elo on dual/1000, +70 on quad/1000)) >261 2693 Junior8 >260 2688 Fritz8. (Deep Fritz7/8 add +40 Elo on dual/1000, +70 on quad/1000); >Fritz8-Bilbao probably +20 Elo >260 2683 Hiarcs9 (Hiarcs9.6 MAC appears to be +30/40 Elo improvement, Hiarcs10 >out soon) > >Sarah Pentium4 is known to be slower for chess relative to A1200 I also remember from the past that they used games from other sources that were not in SSDF conditions and I simply do not take the selective search rating seriously and it seems to me that they simply combine results of different tests that were not in the same conditions. Uri
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.