Author: Chessfun
Date: 11:46:59 02/11/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 11, 2006 at 14:30:20, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 11, 2006 at 13:41:31, Chessfun wrote: > >>On February 11, 2006 at 13:24:25, Chessfun wrote: >> >>>On February 11, 2006 at 09:05:48, Albert Silver wrote: >>> >>>>On February 11, 2006 at 04:26:01, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 11, 2006 at 04:13:45, Chessfun 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. >>>>>> >>>>>>Our current testing at 4040 I would say I am sure Fritz 9 is not weaker than >>>>>>Shredder 9. Hiarcs 10 hypermodern we are still continuing to test. I do though >>>>>>think Fritz 9 is much stronger than the list seems to indicate but as with all >>>>>>rating list that is also why there are + and - error bars. >>>>>> >>>>>>http://kd.lab.nig.ac.jp/chess/CCRL-4040/rating-table-all.shtml >>>>>> >>>>>>Sarah >>>>> >>>>>Your results are based on different conditions(as far as I know you do not use >>>>>original book or pondering). >>>>>It is possible that Fritz9 is better in your conditions and shredder9 is better >>>>>in ssdf conditions. >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>>Yes, the SSDF is the only list to use the actual opening books provided with the >>>>programs, so it may very well be that the book provided with Fritz 9 is simply >>>>inefficient compared to the books made for the other top programs. >>>> >>>> Albert >>> >>>Actually my own rating list is also with original books: >>>http://www.geocities.com/chessfun_1999/rating.html >>> >>>Sarah >> >>I'll beat someone to it by adding true not with autoplayer as standard and not >>with pondering on as standard. >> >>Sarah > >Let make some comparison: >Your list: > >1 Fruit 2.2.1 2843 22 22 610 65.8 % 2729 38.9 % >3 Fritz 9 2830 30 29 340 62.2 % 2744 37.9 % >5 Shredder 9 2812 29 28 360 63.1 % 2719 38.3 % > >CEGT list: > >8 Fruit 2.2-2.2.1 2783 8 8 5211 65.7 % 2669 33.2 % >9 Fritz 9 2780 11 11 2951 62.0 % 2695 30.4 % >14 Shredder 9 2753 8 8 4805 63.2 % 2659 31.9 % Why make that comparison when the time difference is almost double? Its also possible that double the time controls also helps Shredder. And as with any list or rating you have also ignored the start basis of the list which naturally means you can make no simple + or - comparison between the two. Its a totally pointless comparison. A better comparison is the CCRL list as the time controls are very similar. My AMD 2600+ benches to 54 minutes for CCRL time controls. 2 Fruit 2.2-2.2.1 2846 +23 −23 58.3% 2794.2 42.3% 549 3 Fritz 9 2843 +23 −23 57.5% 2793.6 36.2% 549 Shredder 9 2815 +23 −23 53.2% 2793.7 36.8% 560 http://kd.lab.nig.ac.jp/chess/CCRL-4040/rating-table-all.shtml >The difference in your list between fritz and shredder is smaller so it is >possible that book help more shredder than Fritz. Obviously the total overall conditions are the same or they are not. My post stated simply that engine books were used. In reply to Albert's comment that only the SSDF uses original books, thats all. The follow up you replied to clearly indicated that the conditions were not the same so I am not sure what the point is in examining that any further. 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.