| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Graham Banks
Joined: 26 Feb 2006
Posts: 19753
Location: Auckland, NZ
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jouni Uski
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 1166
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:27 pm Post subject: Re: CCRL rating lists updated (25th March 2012) |
  |
|
What makes Critter 1.4 so good in FRC chess, +120 to Rybka 4.1 !! 
_________________
Jouni |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joel Martus
Joined: 16 May 2010
Posts: 47
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:53 pm Post subject: Re: CCRL rating lists updated (25th March 2012) |
|
|
| or rybka so bad in frc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jorge Pichard
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 2558
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:23 pm Post subject: Re: CCRL rating lists updated (25th March 2012) |
|
|
| Jouni wrote: |
| What makes Critter 1.4 so good in FRC chess, +120 to Rybka 4.1 !! |
This clearly tell me that critter 1.4 has a better understanding of how to handle positions and it does not depends so much on openings. This makes Critter 1.4 more dangerous than any other top program if one day a match versus one of the 5 top GMs ever take place without the use of openings and tablebase as a bonus or handicap for Critter 1.4 
PS: Another thing that I noticed is that Houdini 1.5a 64 is much stronger than the latest Houdini:shock: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ernest Bonnem
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 1277
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:42 pm Post subject: Re: CCRL rating lists updated (25th March 2012) |
|
|
| pichy wrote: |
| PS: Another thing that I noticed is that Houdini 1.5a 64 is much stronger than the latest Houdini:shock: |
You write a lot, but also a lot of nonsense...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jorge Pichard
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 2558
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:10 am Post subject: Re: CCRL rating lists updated (25th March 2012) |
|
|
| ernest wrote: |
| pichy wrote: |
| PS: Another thing that I noticed is that Houdini 1.5a 64 is much stronger than the latest Houdini:shock: |
You write a lot, but also a lot of nonsense... |
You have to stick to one, not both, are you making sense or writing nonsense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Uri Blass
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 5958
Location: Tel-Aviv Israel
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:52 am Post subject: Re: CCRL rating lists updated (25th March 2012) |
|
|
| pichy wrote: |
| Jouni wrote: |
| What makes Critter 1.4 so good in FRC chess, +120 to Rybka 4.1 !! |
This clearly tell me that critter 1.4 has a better understanding of how to handle positions and it does not depends so much on openings. This makes Critter 1.4 more dangerous than any other top program if one day a match versus one of the 5 top GMs ever take place without the use of openings and tablebase as a bonus or handicap for Critter 1.4
PS: Another thing that I noticed is that Houdini 1.5a 64 is much stronger than the latest Houdini:shock: |
Houdini1.5 seems to be better than houdini2 only at 40/40 and the lists at 40/4 suggest that houdini2 is better
When we talk about critter1.4 then I disagree with the conclusion.
being relatively better at FRC does not mean having better understanding of chess positions in normal chess and it may be the opposite and some knolwedge that is productive in normal chess is counter productive in FRC when you have different positions that you never get in normal chess.
I suspect that search is more important in FRC relative to normal chess and you get more from doubling the speed in FRC. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jorge Pichard
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 2558
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:41 am Post subject: Re: CCRL rating lists updated (25th March 2012) |
|
|
| Uri Blass wrote: |
| pichy wrote: |
| Jouni wrote: |
| What makes Critter 1.4 so good in FRC chess, +120 to Rybka 4.1 !! |
This clearly tell me that critter 1.4 has a better understanding of how to handle positions and it does not depends so much on openings. This makes Critter 1.4 more dangerous than any other top program if one day a match versus one of the 5 top GMs ever take place without the use of openings and tablebase as a bonus or handicap for Critter 1.4
PS: Another thing that I noticed is that Houdini 1.5a 64 is much stronger than the latest Houdini:shock: |
Houdini1.5 seems to be better than houdini2 only at 40/40 and the lists at 40/4 suggest that houdini2 is better
When we talk about critter1.4 then I disagree with the conclusion.
being relatively better at FRC does not mean having better understanding of chess positions in normal chess and it may be the opposite and some knolwedge that is productive in normal chess is counter productive in FRC when you have different positions that you never get in normal chess.
I suspect that search is more important in FRC relative to normal chess and you get more from doubling the speed in FRC. |
That makes a lot of sense, and it is a professional way of explaining and pointing out your point of view |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Engin Üstün
Joined: 05 Jan 2009
Posts: 579
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:48 pm Post subject: Re: CCRL rating lists updated (25th March 2012) |
|
|
WOW !
22 Tornado 4.88 64-bit 6CPU 3029 +17 −18
breaking the 3000 elo wall  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
