Author: blass uri
Date: 12:29:14 06/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 23, 1999 at 14:49:54, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On June 23, 1999 at 12:38:33, blass uri wrote: > >>>when you start with 4 programs, ONE program has to be in a good place. > >>Fritz did not start with 4 programs. > >>They started with only one program. >>It used 4 processors but it is not 4 programs. >>other programs also used more than one processor and most of them did not do >>good result. > >ChessBase started with Fritz, Junior, Hiarcs and Nimzo. >Hiarcs was the strongest. I do not agree about it. I think that Junior was the strongest of these programs but weaker than shredder inspite of the hardware advantage of Deep Junior(I hope that I am wrong and it is better than shredder). Junior played against good opponents(all of Junior's opponents got at least 4 out of 7) when Fritz had an easy way because Ikarus and Centaur are weak programs(2 out of 7). I think that Hiarcs was the second best out of these programs(It also played against strong opponents) and Fritz was the 3th out of them. > >>Diep also used 4 processors and it did not help it. >>Zugzwang and P.conners had better hardware and it did not help them. > >Exactly. 4x nothing = nothing. > >>You also said that using 4 proccesors can also make fritz see draws faster >>but I did not see draws for fritz only wins and losses. > >you have not seen the score of each position, don't you ? >I was there. I have it on video. draw-score , draw-score, draw-score. >As if chess is draw ! :-)) Did you see it in most of the games? How do you explain the fact that Fritz won 5 out of 7 games if always the score was a draw? I believe that Fritz was right in most of the games and the position was equal out of opening and the position of Fritz improved after the opponents did mistakes. There are cases that the 0.0x shows that Fritz did not understand the position but I believe that it was in minority of the games. > >>It is not clear to me if CStal is more intelligent >>In the game that you posted here of Cstal against Fritz the draw scores of Fritz >>were more correct than the unrealistic scores of Cstal. > >:-))) >Aha. the draw scores are realistic !! :-))) >if a program only evaluates draw over draw-score, and loses (like fritz in paris >against ferret e.g.) what is the realistic part of the score ?? >Ferret was 0.43 up and fritz was 0.00 ! What was realistic of this evaluation? >What was fritz evaluating ? Its chances to win the championship? I do not say that every 0.00 is realistic but If the chances to win the game are equal to the chances to lose it then 0.00 is realistic. Uri
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.