What's new , what's hot , and what's cutting-edge in chess ?
Create topic | To list
Which is better when they are given best possible hardware?
This is impossible to answer, and not just because DB was dismantled 9 years ago. The point is that Rybka and Junior are software, whereas DB was, and Hydra is, a combination of software and hardware. On the CCC forum Donninger has said that he tested Rybka 1.1 against Hydra and that Hydra scored about 80%, usually winning by king attacks. Dave
I think Rybka is the best at the moment, especially the one running on multiple cpu. I Think it was evident in the PAL freestyle chess competetion. Now before otehrs say that it also had human intervention, I woulod like to reming that the only teams which qualified automatically were Rybka teams and if anything, human intervention factor would neutralise the difference in ELO of engines. Again, it was unfortunate that Hydra had to be eliminated when it defaulted, otherwise it would have been intersting. The fact still remains that all the 8 engines that reached the finals were Rybka based running on multiple CPU (I think), and that most were operated not by GM but nerds who were chess enthusiasts just proves my submission. about Deep blue, undoubtedly it was the best at its time, but not necessarily because of the engine code, but hardware considerations.Again, its performance against GK is creditable, but had it been running on a single CPU, a crafty may have walloped it 9-1. Before you dispute my understanding, let me concede that uising such a huge number of CPU effectively in itself was a challange, and IBM did it very well- they are the best - well atleast one of the very best. Of course Anthony C ( of Zappa fame) is probably the best current programmer to makeuse of multiCPu engines, but even he, with all his skills could not repeat the performance of last year, becasue most of the other applications were also running on multi-CPUs. My two cents Regards, Varun
Sorry about the typo. I am slightly light in the head. Besides the fact that it is late in the night, I have also had beer! (Hic!) Thanks to all for pardoning my oversights! "This sentance has three mistakess"
What you may see as "Hydra v.8" is merely Fruit 2.1 hex edited The person who did this also added a text file merely to enhance its ability to look authentic Just compare the options of Fruit 2.1 to this "Hydra v.8," they are identical
Who would believe what Donninger says,He probably was drunk at the time and he should have said that Rybka scored about 80% instead.
Now before otehrs say that it also had human intervention, I woulod like to reming that the only teams which qualified automatically were Rybka teams and if anything, human intervention factor would neutralise the difference in ELO of engines. Again, it was unfortunate that Hydra had to be eliminated when it defaulted, otherwise it would have been intersting. The fact still remains that all the 8 engines that reached the finals were Rybka based running on multiple CPU (I think), and that most were operated not by GM but nerds who were chess enthusiasts just proves my submission. about Deep blue, undoubtedly it was the best at its time, but not necessarily because of the engine code, but hardware considerations.Again, its performance against GK is creditable, but had it been running on a single CPU, a crafty may have walloped it 9-1. Before you dispute my understanding, let me concede that uising such a huge number of CPU effectively in itself was a challange, and IBM did it very well- they are the best - well atleast one of the very best. Of course Anthony C ( of Zappa fame) is probably the best current programmer to makeuse of multiCPu engines, but even he, with all his skills could not repeat the performance of last year, becasue most of the other applications were also running on multi-CPUs. My two cents Regards, Varun
To my mind the performance of the 8 Rybka centaurs in a Freestyle tournament is totally meaningless as evidence, particularly as Hydra was not there. Kasparov is surely a pretty good judge of chess strength and he believes that a Centaur (with the appropriate human of course) is significantly stronger than any human or computer program. You have no possible evidence that Rybka is stronger than Hydra. The fact is that Hydra has won every computer event in which it has participated in the past couple of years, including a crushing match win against Shredder. Paderborn is invariably stronger than the WCCC (where competitors have not only to attend but also pay the organisers handsomely for the privilege) and in its last two appearances there (2003 and 2005) Hydra suffered no losses and conceded only three draws. It is worth remembering that the SMP Rybka managed only third place in this year's WCCC. It is difficult to imagine that Hydra would have finished behind Junior and Shredder. Rybka may or may not be stronger than Hydra but there is no real evidence to support this, and certainly not evidence from Freestyle tournaments! Dave
I should have added that PAL/CSS was won by the Centaur with the strongest human players. The Rajlich team had 2 IMs and GM Krasenkow. And it is miseleading to suppose that Centaurs with humans who are not particularly strong OTB are not formidable when allied to a computer. Arno Nickel is only 2150 in OTB play but is a GM and very formidable in correspondence chess. The only way to judge engines is in matches and tournaments between engines - not to try to draw conclusions based on Freestyle tournaments especially as we nothing little about many of the the human participants.
KNOW little - not "nothing little" of course! Dave
Hydra played like a centaur too ... They have 2 GM , Christopher Lutz and the only GM in UAE ...this is the only team with 2 GM ... remember without GM assistance Hydra played the free style last year and the 2 hydra was eliminate before the semi finals by some guys using deep shredder9,Fruit,Deep fritz 8(engine weaker than Rybka )...This year with 2 GM it was lot better ...but it didn t manage to be in the final 8 last July. Hydra without GM assistance is weak.Hydra and Rybka smp with the same hardware , this is an easy win for rybka ... we all know that hydra advantage is his hardware , the engine by himself is even weaker than deep shredder on same dual core ... Hydra could beat rybka 1.1 single cpu , but could only draw rybka 2.0 beta 8 on dual or quad cpu ... Just imagine Hydra on a quad vs Rybka SMP with 32 cpus !!!Rybka will win 95% of all game hydra is no longer the number 1 .
remember without GM assistance Hydra played the free style last year and the 2 hydra was eliminate before the semi finals by some guys using deep shredder9,Fruit,Deep fritz 8(engine weaker than Rybka )...This year with 2 GM it was lot better ...but it didn t manage to be in the final 8 last July. Hydra without GM assistance is weak.Hydra and Rybka smp with the same hardware , this is an easy win for rybka ... we all know that hydra advantage is his hardware , the engine by himself is even weaker than deep shredder on same dual core ... Hydra could beat rybka 1.1 single cpu , but could only draw rybka 2.0 beta 8 on dual or quad cpu ... Just imagine Hydra on a quad vs Rybka SMP with 32 cpus !!!Rybka will win 95% of all game hydra is no longer the number 1 .
According to the Hydra team when Hydra is operated by the main sponsor it plays as Zor_Champ, as in the prelims in June. It wasn't in the final for the very good reason that it did not turn up for the play-offs! On what basis do you say that "without GM assistance Hydra is weak"? Do you mean like Bam Bam and Faile? Then how did it manage to win in its last two appearances at Paderborn? How did it manage to defeat Adams (No.7 in the world 5.5-0.5)? How did it thrash Shredder in a match? Why has it not lost a game to a computer program for more than two years? Take the following sentence in your post: "we all know that hydra advantage is his hardware , the engine by himself is even weaker than deep shredder on same dual core ..." This is completely meaningless because Hydra is a completly inseparable combination of software and hardware. You cannot separate out the engine. Take the following comments: "Hydra could beat rybka 1.1 single cpu , but could only draw rybka 2.0 beta 8 on dual or quad cpu ... Just imagine Hydra on a quad vs Rybka SMP with 32 cpus !!!Rybka will win 95% of all game" It is totally devoid of any substance or meaning. By definition Hydra would not be playing on a quad because it is, like Deep Blue, an integral combination of softare and purpose-built hardware. It simply is not an engine in the sense of a ChessBase or UCI engine. You say that Hydra "could only draw rybka 2.0 beta on dual or quad cpu". Can you tell us all precisley how you know that? Why, then, did the SMP Rybka come third to Shredder and Junior in the WCCC when Hydra has made mincemeat of these two engines in the past couple of years? As for figures like "Rybka will win 95% of all games" one can of course pull any such fanciful figure out of the air. Dave
As of 12/2004, Hydra has retired from playing chess competitively in tournaments, now its just social occasions for money. (ex: Freestyle PAL tournament)
remember without GM assistance Hydra played the free style last year and the 2 hydra was eliminate before the semi finals by some guys using deep shredder9,Fruit,Deep fritz 8(engine weaker than Rybka )...This year with 2 GM it was lot better ...but it didn t manage to be in the final 8 last July. Hydra without GM assistance is weak.Hydra and Rybka smp with the same hardware , this is an easy win for rybka ... we all know that hydra advantage is his hardware , the engine by himself is even weaker than deep shredder on same dual core ... Hydra could beat rybka 1.1 single cpu , but could only draw rybka 2.0 beta 8 on dual or quad cpu ... Just imagine Hydra on a quad vs Rybka SMP with 32 cpus !!!Rybka will win 95% of all game hydra is no longer the number 1 . According to the Hydra team when Hydra is operated by the main sponsor it plays as Zor_Champ, as in the prelims in June. It wasn't in the final for the very good reason that it did not turn up for the play-offs! On what basis do you say that "without GM assistance Hydra is weak"? Do you mean like Bam Bam and Faile? Then how did it manage to win in its last two appearances at Paderborn? How did it manage to defeat Adams (No.7 in the world 5.5-0.5)? How did it thrash Shredder in a match? Why has it not lost a game to a computer program for more than two years? Take the following sentence in your post: "we all know that hydra advantage is his hardware , the engine by himself is even weaker than deep shredder on same dual core ..." This is completely meaningless because Hydra is a completly inseparable combination of software and hardware. You cannot separate out the engine. Take the following comments: "Hydra could beat rybka 1.1 single cpu , but could only draw rybka 2.0 beta 8 on dual or quad cpu ... Just imagine Hydra on a quad vs Rybka SMP with 32 cpus !!!Rybka will win 95% of all game" It is totally devoid of any substance or meaning. By definition Hydra would not be playing on a quad because it is, like Deep Blue, an integral combination of softare and purpose-built hardware. It simply is not an engine in the sense of a ChessBase or UCI engine. You say that Hydra "could only draw rybka 2.0 beta on dual or quad cpu". Can you tell us all precisley how you know that? Why, then, did the SMP Rybka come third to Shredder and Junior in the WCCC when Hydra has made mincemeat of these two engines in the past couple of years? As for figures like "Rybka will win 95% of all games" one can of course pull any such fanciful figure out of the air. Dave
The truth about Hydra ... His hardware is the best computer hardware to play chess. without hardware advantage hydra engine is weaker than Deep Shredder engine is not a secret ...even for you . hydra is famous for his big hardware not his engine .I said weaker than Rybka or deep shredder , but I never said weak like faile you have a big advantage when you play with 32 or 64 cpu vs a dual. Put Rybka smp on 32 cpu like hydra and play it against hydra 32 cpu ... Rybka will win easily ... Not a secret . now no engine is invincible, even hydra ... why Deep Shredder beat rybka at wccc , because it played a very good opening that the shredder team prepare specialy against Rybka (very good job this openning and congratulation to the shredder team). with Stats on 10000 games deep shredder 10 will perform 30%-35% against Rybka . Normal that sometimes you win or u lose .Rybka beat Deep shredder weeks before at Leiden . should I make u a list of tournament that rybka won this year ?? and to win all this tournament it didn t need 32 or 64 cpus !! just check what is the top engine at CCRL,CEGT,SSDF....
Hydra 32 cpu beat rybka with 1 or 2 cpu Rybka with 32 cpu beat Hydra 32 cpu
if you mean only the engine strenght i think that rybka is the strongest but i if mean the hardware hydra has the most effective hardware. it is easy to compare: run both engins on the same cpu.
I did a Rybka benchmark . Quad cpu is better than single cpu for chess and between a opteron 285 and amd XP 3000 mhz. same engine same openning book same 3-4-5 egtb the difference could be 300-400 elo !!! on playchess.com almost all opteron 285 or higher are over 2800 elo or even over 2900 elo all xp3000 and below are 2600 elo or even under 2500 elo http://chessmonster.mylivepage.com/wiki/article/Ry...
I conclude that rybka on 32 cpu should be stronger than Rybka on 1 cpu
Dave, was it you who stated that Hydra won every computer chess tournament it participated in? Please see the link below in Hydrachess where it states that it finished 2nd AFTER Shredder. http://www.hydrachess.com/main.cfm?middle=cfm/tour... As far as the hardware goes, please check this out http://www.hydrachess.com/main.cfm With that sort of hardware, Rybka would be a brute! Again, the main programmer Dr. Chrilly Donninger had an engine whic was reasonably strong, BUt weaker than crafty before he decided to write a chess program for Hydra- earlier Hydra was known as Brutus. And you know it as well as I do what happened to Hydra in the slightly longer time controls in the 1st PAL Chess championships, which prompted the organisers ( in this case, the PAL group) to shorten the time controls. (Which incidentally, favours the engine with more processing power- not better algorithm) Again, this time, when the time controls were more reasonable, you saw how Hydra did not actually qualify directly, but had to play in playoffs. That it had 2 GM in its team, and that they, being the organisers, could not qualify because of a technical misunderstanding with Playchess.com should take away nothing from the wonderful performance of Rybka, and especially Vasik was indeed heartening. Again, people concede that the quality of the games payed this time round was the best ever witnessed by us. I read a paper somewhere, where I forget, will let you know when I find the source again, that how you could improve the quality of analysis by increasing the processing power rather than the algorithm. Anyway, today we went to the Blue Mountains (near Sydney, Australia) for a team building session, and I have just retruned after a wonderful time (YES, I did have lots of Beer (Hic)- what the heck, Aussies are right there with the best in terms of per capita Beer consumption Signing off for now, Cheers Varun
Interesting opinions... And this is my opinion: Up to this moment Rybka is best ever existed combination of software/hardware ! No doubt at all... Second is Zappa with xxxx CPU's . Why ? Because 100-150 mln/nodes per second + good chess knowledge - compared to 700 mlm/s for Deep Blue without almost any positional knowledge. After that i will place Junior / the prove is WCCC/ and Shredder - both of them with well prepared opening book/ this is must/ And just after that coming Hydra. Why ? Because they was afraid like chikens to enter in WCCC ... How many and so stupid excuses they found to do not enter and to do not come back at bottom half of the table...It is normally to do not enter when you will be beaten and your cost is few $ million compared to few $ thousend and good mind. But Hydra was the best for 2 years... And all the best for the efforts to combine hardware and software... This was/is great... And at last place is Fritz... I wonder how strong will be multiCPU updated engine... I thing that Fritz can surprice many people if there was some work on the engine during last year... Deep blue ... very good marketing for IBM before some time...Now just part from the history nothing more... Z-the best just my opinion
Please see the link below in Hydrachess where it states that it finished 2nd AFTER Shredder. http://www.hydrachess.com/main.cfm?middle=cfm/tour... As far as the hardware goes, please check this out http://www.hydrachess.com/main.cfm With that sort of hardware, Rybka would be a brute! Again, the main programmer Dr. Chrilly Donninger had an engine whic was reasonably strong, BUt weaker than crafty before he decided to write a chess program for Hydra- earlier Hydra was known as Brutus. And you know it as well as I do what happened to Hydra in the slightly longer time controls in the 1st PAL Chess championships, which prompted the organisers ( in this case, the PAL group) to shorten the time controls. (Which incidentally, favours the engine with more processing power- not better algorithm) Again, this time, when the time controls were more reasonable, you saw how Hydra did not actually qualify directly, but had to play in playoffs. That it had 2 GM in its team, and that they, being the organisers, could not qualify because of a technical misunderstanding with Playchess.com should take away nothing from the wonderful performance of Rybka, and especially Vasik was indeed heartening. Again, people concede that the quality of the games payed this time round was the best ever witnessed by us. I read a paper somewhere, where I forget, will let you know when I find the source again, that how you could improve the quality of analysis by increasing the processing power rather than the algorithm. Anyway, today we went to the Blue Mountains (near Sydney, Australia) for a team building session, and I have just retruned after a wonderful time (YES, I did have lots of Beer (Hic)- what the heck, Aussies are right there with the best in terms of per capita Beer consumption Signing off for now, Cheers Varun
No. I did not say that Hydra has won every tournament it has participated in. I said that it has not lost a game in the two years since ICT4 early in 2004. In that tournament Hydra came out of the opening book in its game with Shredder with an evaluation of -3!!! Since that time Hydra has used a book of only 10 moves, its team believing that Hydra can find better moves. (Necchi also caught out Rybka in the opening in this year's WCCC.) You are in error about Donninger. He is best known for his engine Nimzo, which was No.3 in the world at one time. It is completely wrong to suggest that Nimzo was ever weaker than Crafty. You again claim that Hydra's two GMs have been regularly participating in Freestyle tournaments. I can only repeat again what both the Hydra team and Arno Nickel have said: when Hydra is operated by its main sponsor in Abu Dhabi it is always known as Zor_Champ, and it is Zor_Champ (rather than Hydra) that has participated in the last two years of Freestyle. I suspect that the spnsor of Hydra has been willing to sponsor the PAL/CSS tournaments mainly because he is the one who gets to to use Hydra. Anyway I cannot see the point in the debate about Freestyle. It is NOT computer chess as such and we simply cannot judge the strength of engines in these tournaments. Finally, you say that with Hydra's hardware Rybka would be a brute. You don't seem to understand that the essence of Hydra is the FPGAs which are separately programmable. You cannot divorce software and hardware. Hydra is not a program running on a computer. It is a complex combination of software and hardware. For the record Wikipedia gives Hydra's tournament performances since 2004: In April 2004, Hydra finished second in the International CSVN Tournament in Leiden, the Netherlands. It lost one game and drew 3, leaving it with 6.5 points out of 9, 1.5 points behind winner Shredder. A loss out of the opening led to the hiring of GM Christopher Lutz, who made a new openings book. In August 2004, at the 14th Abu Dhabi International Chess Festival, Hydra played an eight game match against the computer program Shredder 8, a multiple-times world computer chess champion. Running on "just" 16 nodes Hydra defeated Shredder 5.5 - 2.5, winning three games and drawing the rest. In an informal match at the same tournament, Hydra took on International Grandmaster Evgeny Vladimirov of Kazakhstan, and defeated him by a score of 3.5 - 0.5. In October 2004, in a man vs. machine contest, Hydra defeated former FIDE world champion Ruslan Ponomariov in both of their games. Ponomariov had an ELO rating of 2710 at the time of the match. In February 2005, Hydra won the 14th IPCCC (International Paderborn Computer Chess Championships) tournament. Hydra scored 8 out of 9 (seven wins and two draws), defeating chess program Shredder again in the process. (Hydra had conceded just one draw in its previous appearance at Paderborn.) From June 21 to June 27, 2005, Hydra played a six game match against Michael Adams, the top British player and ranked 7th in the world. The prize fund was $145,000, paid out on a per game basis: a win netting $25,000, a draw $10,000 to both players, and a loss nothing. Hydra defeated Adams by a score of 5.5 - 0.5; Adams lost each game except for game 2 which he drew. This version of Hydra was running on half power; only 32 out of 64 nodes were utilized. Adams played against the Scylla version of Hydra. In November 2005, Hydra played 4 games: it beat Rustam Kasimdzhanov, drew with Alexander Khalifman, beat Ruslan Ponomariov and finally drew with Rustam Kasimdzhanov. Hydra has so far no loss on record against an unaided human player in over-the-board play. Hydra has, however, been beaten by humans who had access to the advice of other programs during their games; for example, correspondence chess International Grandmaster Arno Nickel beat an older version of Hydra in a two-game correspondence match lasting six months. Dave
All of you talk about playing Hydra vs Rybka games on the same Hardware. They cannot run on the same hardware.
remember without GM assistance Hydra played the free style last year and the 2 hydra was eliminate before the semi finals by some guys using deep shredder9,Fruit,Deep fritz 8(engine weaker than Rybka )...This year with 2 GM it was lot better ...but it didn t manage to be in the final 8 last July. Hydra without GM assistance is weak.Hydra and Rybka smp with the same hardware , this is an easy win for rybka ... we all know that hydra advantage is his hardware , the engine by himself is even weaker than deep shredder on same dual core ... Hydra could beat rybka 1.1 single cpu , but could only draw rybka 2.0 beta 8 on dual or quad cpu ... Just imagine Hydra on a quad vs Rybka SMP with 32 cpus !!!Rybka will win 95% of all game hydra is no longer the number 1 . According to the Hydra team when Hydra is operated by the main sponsor it plays as Zor_Champ, as in the prelims in June. It wasn't in the final for the very good reason that it did not turn up for the play-offs! On what basis do you say that "without GM assistance Hydra is weak"? Do you mean like Bam Bam and Faile? Then how did it manage to win in its last two appearances at Paderborn? How did it manage to defeat Adams (No.7 in the world 5.5-0.5)? How did it thrash Shredder in a match? Why has it not lost a game to a computer program for more than two years? Take the following sentence in your post: "we all know that hydra advantage is his hardware , the engine by himself is even weaker than deep shredder on same dual core ..." This is completely meaningless because Hydra is a completly inseparable combination of software and hardware. You cannot separate out the engine. Take the following comments: "Hydra could beat rybka 1.1 single cpu , but could only draw rybka 2.0 beta 8 on dual or quad cpu ... Just imagine Hydra on a quad vs Rybka SMP with 32 cpus !!!Rybka will win 95% of all game" It is totally devoid of any substance or meaning. By definition Hydra would not be playing on a quad because it is, like Deep Blue, an integral combination of softare and purpose-built hardware. It simply is not an engine in the sense of a ChessBase or UCI engine. You say that Hydra "could only draw rybka 2.0 beta on dual or quad cpu". Can you tell us all precisley how you know that? Why, then, did the SMP Rybka come third to Shredder and Junior in the WCCC when Hydra has made mincemeat of these two engines in the past couple of years? As for figures like "Rybka will win 95% of all games" one can of course pull any such fanciful figure out of the air. Dave The truth about Hydra ... His hardware is the best computer hardware to play chess. without hardware advantage hydra engine is weaker than Deep Shredder engine is not a secret ...even for you . hydra is famous for his big hardware not his engine .I said weaker than Rybka or deep shredder , but I never said weak like faile you have a big advantage when you play with 32 or 64 cpu vs a dual. Put Rybka smp on 32 cpu like hydra and play it against hydra 32 cpu ... Rybka will win easily ... Not a secret . now no engine is invincible, even hydra ... why Deep Shredder beat rybka at wccc , because it played a very good opening that the shredder team prepare specialy against Rybka (very good job this openning and congratulation to the shredder team). with Stats on 10000 games deep shredder 10 will perform 30%-35% against Rybka . Normal that sometimes you win or u lose .Rybka beat Deep shredder weeks before at Leiden . should I make u a list of tournament that rybka won this year ?? and to win all this tournament it didn t need 32 or 64 cpus !! just check what is the top engine at CCRL,CEGT,SSDF....
You persist in trying to separate some imaginary engine called "Hydra" from its hardware. Hence you write: "Put Rybka smp on 32 cpu like hydra and play it against hydra 32 cpu ... Rybka will win easily ... Not a secret." You cannot put Hydra on a 32 cpu system. It is not an engine as such. The essence of Hydra is its array of separately programmable FPGAs. It is not like Zappa and its 100-plus CPUs. Hydra is a combination of software and hardware. Hence your statements such as "without hardware advantage hydra engine is weaker than Deep Shredder engine is not a secret" is quite meaningless. There is no engine as such. You write: "I said weaker than Rybka or deep shredder , but I never said weak like faile." In fact your exact words were "Without GM assistance Hydra is weak" without any reference to other engines. You correctly point out regarding Rybka's loss to Shreeder at Turin that any engine can lose a game. But it is worth noting that against the other six engines in the top seven (Junior, Shredder, Zappa, Spike, Crafty and Diep) Rybka running on 8 CPUsm was unable to win a single game. I think if you are honest you would agree that Hydra would have been expected to have scored more than 2.5 out of 6 against these opponents given the overwhelming victories it has achieved twice at Paderborn, against Shredder, against Adams and an assortment or other leading GMs - and in every case using half or fewer of its 64 nodes. Since its second place at ICT4 in April 2004 Hydra has been undefeated. Rybka may or may not win a match against Hydra, What I am saying is that on present evidence we cannot state that with the absolute certainty that you do, and we definitely cannot assert that "Without GM assistance Hydra is weak." Poor old Adams and SMK. They must both be kicking themselves for being annihilated by a piece of junk running on one-quarter and one-half power.. Dave
Regards old results. I want to help everyone in clearing the old results picture. Just try to run match with new engines at new or olr hardware vs old engines at old hardware and try to compare the results. For example: Rybka 2.1 /8 CPU Orterons/ - vs - Shredder 8 - 2004/5 /4 CPU's Xeon's 2.8 Ghz/ 8 games and please compare the result and way of play with Hydra-Shredder match. Without taking Sandro words that Shredder in this match was buggy.. Z-the best
I want to help everyone in clearing the old results picture. Just try to run match with new engines at new or olr hardware vs old engines at old hardware and try to compare the results. For example: Rybka 2.1 /8 CPU Orterons/ - vs - Shredder 8 - 2004/5 /4 CPU's Xeon's 2.8 Ghz/ 8 games and please compare the result and way of play with Hydra-Shredder match. Without taking Sandro words that Shredder in this match was buggy.. Z-the best
But both Shredder and Hydra have changed since then.
And this is my opinion: And just after that coming Hydra. Why ? Because they was afraid like chikens to enter in WCCC ... How many and so stupid excuses they found to do not enter and to do not come back at bottom half of the table...It is normally to do not enter when you will be beaten and your cost is few $ million compared to few $ thousend and good mind. Z-the best just my opinion
Donninger has taken a principled stand not to play in the WCCC for several years because he dislikes what he sees as a money-making scheme for its organisers in its professional and semi-professional entry fees. This was long before Rybka appeared on the scene. In this period Hydra has twice taken part in Paderborn, which is invariably stronger than the WCCC, as are a number of other major tournaments. So much for your claim of ducking the opposition! Many top engines are always absent from the WCCC. This year it was Hydra, Fritz, Hiarcs and Fruit among others. Even in the very early experimental stages of Brutus Donninger has never finished lower than third in any tournament. Why do you imagine that Hydra would suddenly plunge to the bottom half of a tournament table - particularly as the bottom half of the Turin tournament was exceptionally weak? Btw to put the record straight Hydra comfortably won the PAL/CSS tournament in April, the last Freestyle final in which the machine participated. Dave
In the text you can use Wiki or HTML tags.
