Author: J.Dufek
Date: 13:39:39 02/25/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 25, 2006 at 16:02:47, Wayne Lowrance wrote: >On February 25, 2006 at 09:32:15, William Penn wrote: > >>On February 25, 2006 at 01:37:12, Wayne Lowrance wrote: >> >>>CC is my interest in Rybka as published little way back. I run my programs >>>against each other in infinate analysis. This takes a lot of time to get a idea >>>of performance. What I am asking can anyone tell me of testing where Rybka and >>>Fritz8 or 9 compare in, say 2 hours per move as for example. >>> >>>Thanks much >>>Wayne >> >>I haven't heard of any ratings at such long time controls, but it might be >>possible with a large number of people cooperating. Maybe it also could be done >>wwith a good set of test positions. In the meantime we each try different >>engines and then proceed based on instinct. >> >>I don't have Fritz 9 (no DVD player), but have compared the Rybka betas, Fruit >>2.2.1, and Shredder 9. I believe Shredder has been left behind. Rybka or Fruit >>are better. >> >>Fruit behaves better than Rybka and more predictably at long analysis times, >>also produces lengthier analysis outputs. Rybka concatenates the moves to 1 pair >>(2 half-moves) after several hours in infinite mode in most positions. Also it >>is impossible to predict how long it will take between legs with Rybka. I call >>them legs - the successive analysis lines output in the engine window. Fruit's >>multiplier for successive legs tends to be about 2, and behaves fairly >>predictably. Rybka's multiplier is more like 3, but variable, not easy to >>predict; it might be 5 or more. For example you might have let the analysis go >>for 2 hours, and wonder how long you'll have to wait til the next one decides to >>burp itself out into the real world. With Rybka you might have to wait a long >>time, 10-15 hours. With Fruit it's a pretty good bet that the next one will show >>up in about 4 hours total run time. These are important considerations for CC >>players. I'm sure most CC players understand this kind of thinking, others may >>not. >> >>My conclusion at this point is that Rybka is useful at intermediate infinite >>analyis times, say 30 minutes to 2 hours. At longer run times it's too >>unpredictable and often drives me crazy waiting. So I tend to prefer Fruit if >>I'm going to let the analysis run over 2 hours, but I go in cycles. Currently >>I'm in an upcycle that favors Rybka, tomorrow it may be Fruit again. Obviously I >>don't really know anything, everything is just hunches... :) >>WP > >Very interesting, Thank you >Wayne OK. Once more. Infinite analysis is only _SMALL PART_ CC games. Ignoring this fact you cannot go up with results and ELO. Fruit's playing style is not very suitable for sharp CC games. Rybka in this moment /short analysis line/ is useless for CC.
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.