chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Deep Fritz 
DEEP FRITZ 13
the newest version of the world's most popular chess program
NOW ON SALE AT THE CHESSGAMES STORE >>
 
Deep Fritz (Computer)
Number of games in database: 72
Years covered: 2000 to 2007
Overall record: +15 -19 =37 (47.2%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games
      Based on games in the database; may be incomplete.
      1 exhibition game, odds game, etc. is excluded from this statistic.

MOST PLAYED OPENINGS
With the White pieces:
 Catalan (5) 
    E06 E04
 Sicilian (5) 
    B90 B77 B44 B67 B36
 Nimzo Indian (4) 
    E55 E32 E21 E20
 Slav (4) 
    D17 D13 D12
With the Black pieces:
 Sicilian (8) 
    B97 B62 B42 B23 B46
 Nimzo Indian (7) 
    E32 E43 E51 E50 E49
Repertoire Explorer

NOTABLE GAMES: [what is this?]
   Deep Fritz vs Kramnik, 2006 1-0
   Kramnik vs Deep Fritz, 2002 0-1
   Deep Fritz vs Kramnik, 2006 1-0
   Kramnik vs Deep Fritz, 2006 1/2-1/2
   Deep Fritz vs Kramnik, 2002 1-0
   Deep Fritz vs Deep Junior, 2001 1-0
   Deep Fritz vs Deep Junior, 2001 1/2-1/2
   Kramnik vs Deep Fritz, 2006 1/2-1/2
   Deep Fritz vs Kramnik, 2002 1/2-1/2
   Kramnik vs Deep Fritz, 2002 1/2-1/2

NOTABLE TOURNAMENTS: [what is this?]
   Brains in Bahrain (2002)
   Kramnik - Deep Fritz (2006)

GAME COLLECTIONS: [what is this?]
   deep fritz by iywo

Search Sacrifice Explorer for Deep Fritz (Computer)
Search Google for Deep Fritz (Computer)


DEEP FRITZ (COMPUTER)

[what is this?]
Based off of the single processor series of chess engine called Fritz (Computer). Its other relatives include X3D Fritz (Computer) & Pocket Fritz (Computer) is a version that is compatible for mobile device play.

 page 1 of 3; games 1-25 of 72  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves Year Event/LocaleOpening
1. M Golubev vs Deep Fritz  0-135 2000 KC Computer-Human EventC47 Four Knights
2. B Alterman vs Deep Fritz 1-087 2000 KC Human-MachineA03 Bird's Opening
3. R Har-Zvi vs Deep Fritz  ½-½68 2000 KC Computer-Human EventC49 Four Knights
4. Zsuzsa Polgar vs Deep Fritz 0-150 2000 KC Computer-Human EventA22 English
5. A Bezgodov vs Deep Fritz  ½-½90 2000 KC Computer-Human EventB46 Sicilian, Taimanov Variation
6. Deep Junior vs Deep Fritz 1-0109 2001 BGN Computer QualifierC42 Petrov Defense
7. Gambit Tiger vs Deep Fritz 1-059 2001 Computer Chess Match TournamentE32 Nimzo-Indian, Classical
8. Deep Fritz vs Deep Junior ½-½170 2001 BGN Computer QualifierD04 Queen's Pawn Game
9. Deep Fritz vs Junior  1-073 2001 Computer Chess Match TournamentE06 Catalan, Closed, 5.Nf3
10. Huebner vs Deep Fritz ½-½9 2001 Sparkassen Man-Machine MatchB17 Caro-Kann, Steinitz Variation
11. Shredder vs Deep Fritz  1-072 2001 Computer Chess Match TournamentE50 Nimzo-Indian, 4.e3 O-O 5.Nf3, without ...d5
12. Deep Junior vs Deep Fritz  0-162 2001 BGN Computer QualifierD58 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tartakower (Makagonov-Bondarevsky) Syst
13. Junior vs Deep Fritz  ½-½48 2001 Computer Chess Match TournamentC43 Petrov, Modern Attack
14. Deep Fritz vs Huebner  ½-½24 2001 Sparkassen Man-Machine MatchC00 French Defense
15. Deep Fritz vs Junior ½-½149 2001 Computer Chess Match TournamentE06 Catalan, Closed, 5.Nf3
16. Deep Fritz vs Deep Junior 0-169 2001 BGN Computer QualifierB67 Sicilian, Richter-Rauzer Attack, 7...a6 Defense, 8...Bd7
17. Deep Fritz vs Shredder 1-041 2001 Computer Chess Match TournamentE20 Nimzo-Indian
18. Deep Junior vs Deep Fritz 1-071 2001 BGN Computer QualifierB22 Sicilian, Alapin
19. Deep Fritz vs Gandalf  1-042 2001 Computer Chess Match TournamentB36 Sicilian, Accelerated Fianchetto
20. Deep Fritz vs Huebner  ½-½29 2001 Sparkassen Man-Machine MatchD17 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
21. Nimzo-8 vs Deep Fritz  ½-½66 2001 Computer Chess Match TournamentE32 Nimzo-Indian, Classical
22. Deep Fritz vs Deep Junior ½-½109 2001 BGN Computer QualifierD02 Queen's Pawn Game
23. Deep Fritz vs Nimzo-8  0-155 2001 Computer Chess Match TournamentC53 Giuoco Piano
24. Deep Junior vs Deep Fritz 0-154 2001 BGN Computer QualifierB47 Sicilian, Taimanov (Bastrikov) Variation
25. Nimzo-8 vs Deep Fritz  1-064 2001 Computer Chess Match TournamentE04 Catalan, Open, 5.Nf3
 page 1 of 3; games 1-25 of 72  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Deep Fritz wins | Deep Fritz loses  
 

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Dec-05-06
Premium Chessgames Member
  WannaBe: Yeah, I can see it now... 1. d4 (20 seconds later) 1... e5 Black mates in 83 moves.
Dec-05-06  TefthePersian: We don't really know how many atoms there are in the universe. But when they say, "particles in the observable universe" what do they mean? Are they including quarks? Matter and energy convert from one to the other regularly, so...the number always changes. Even estimating it is very, very complicated.
Dec-05-06  TefthePersian: And dark matter makes the situation more complicated. It (probably) does not react electromagnetically so we can't see it. How do we then count the amount of particles in it? Exactly.
Dec-05-06  rover: <TefthePersian> Dark energy particles must be heavy, otherwise we would be able to observe their production in particle accelerators. So the number of dark matter particles is much lower than the number of baryons in the universe.
Dec-05-06  TefthePersian: <rover> "Dark energy particles must be heavy, otherwise we would be able to observe their production in particle accelerators. So the number of dark matter particles is much lower than the number of baryons in the universe."

The amount of dark matter is far, far more common than vanilla matter, and the composition of dark matter is unknown. So...

I don't know what you're saying about particle accelerators and dark matter creation.

Dec-05-06  rover: What I'm saying that various particles get created in high energy collisions in particle accelerators. Part of the energy gets converted into matter. The reason why the top quark was the last one to be discovered becouse it is the most massive one so it needed the most massive collisions to be created.

Now if dark matter particles (no idea why I wrote dark energy in my last post) were light they would be created in these collisions. Even if it doesn't get detected after the collision (quite likely), there would be some energy missing, so the creation of dark matter would be detected.

Now the fact is that this phenomenon is not detected, so the conclusion is that dark matter particles are heavy. So despite the fact that dark matter is more massive in the universe than baryonic matter there is probably less number of them.

Dec-05-06  TefthePersian: <rover> "What I'm saying that various particles get created in high energy collisions in particle accelerators."

Yes, but these are all normal matter/radiation. (Not dark matter/dark energy *Whatever the hell dark energy is*)

"Part of the energy gets converted into matter."

I don't know many particle acceleration experiments, physics is just an interest of mine, but I have no idea how this means that dark matter would be created from collision. The elecromagnetic force is the primary thing in particle collision, but also the strong force. We know that dark matter probably doesn't interact via the electromagnetic force, because uh...we can't see it.

"The reason why the top quark was the last one to be discovered becouse it is the most massive one so it needed the most massive collisions to be created."

I again don't understand the link between normal matter and dark matter in particle collision of normal matter and normal matter.

"Now if dark matter particles (no idea why I wrote dark energy in my last post) were light they would be created in these collisions."

If you could explain this, I would be happy.

"Even if it doesn't get detected after the collision (quite likely), there would be some energy missing, so the creation of dark matter would be detected."

We know that dark matter must interact via gravity, and it seems to fill in the the massive gap required of the universe's mass, so I don't mind saying that it's heavy. But I don't know the situation we're talking about here. What is being collided into what that would probably create dark matter if dark matter was "light"?

"Now the fact is that this phenomenon is not detected, so the conclusion is that dark matter particles are heavy. So despite the fact that dark matter is more massive in the universe than baryonic matter there is probably less number of them."

The universe is composed of roughly 3/4ths dark matter. It would have to be really, really massive to account for that difference in percentage in ...uh...dark-atom size. I think more likely is that Tal is inside each one of the dark atoms, and he makes the force of gravity act like a real man.

Jan-27-07  Dionyseus: Rybka has just dismanted Deep Fritz 10 in a 6 game classical time control match by a score of 5.5-0.5, the machines that were used were identical to the one used in the Kramnik - Deep Fritz 10 match:

You can download the pgn and the commentaries here:
http://perso.orange.fr/lefouduroi/t...

Feb-01-07  micartouse: A brief timeline of anti-computer strategy for world class players:

20 years ago - Play some crazy gambits and demolish the computer every game. Shock all the nerdy computer scientists in the room.

15 years ago - Take it safely into the endgame where its calculating can't match human knowledge and intuition. Laugh at its pointless moves. Win most the games.

10 years ago - Play some hypermodern opening to confuse it strategically and avoid direct confrontation. Be careful and win with a 1 game lead.

5 years ago - Block up the position to avoid all tactics. You'll probably lose a game, but maybe you can win one by taking advantage of the horizon effect. Draw the match.

Now - Play reputable solid openings and make the best possible moves. Prepare everything deeply, and never make a tactical mistake. If you're lucky, you'll get some 70 move draws. Fool some gullible sponsor into thinking you have a chance.

Apr-21-07  Voxation: Out of Fritz 9, Deep Fritz and X3D Fritz, which is the strongest and which is the weakest?
Feb-24-08  The Rocket: Well the strongest version is deep fritz, then comes x3dfritz(but i dont know if it really exists anymore,?), and lastly fritz 9 heres a site which provides computer rankings:

fritzhttp://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccr...

Feb-07-09  WhiteRook48: however the strongest computer is Rybka
Sep-21-12  Conrad93: We can never be certain about how many particles exist in the universe, but we can "estimate" the number.
Nov-28-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  whiteshark: testing <Deep Fritz 14 x64>:

http://cegt.forumieren.com/t36-test...

Dec-04-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  numbersguy70: Deep Fritz 14 definitely calculates quicker than Fritz 12 on my cheapo PC, but comparing exact same positions against Fritz 12, 14 reaches more drawish numerical evaluations every time. Kind of annoying, as I'm used to 1.0 to 1.5 being clearly winning for white, and now have to adjust to something less (still figuring it out).
Jan-23-14  SChesshevsky: I noticed this game

B Alterman vs Deep Fritz, 2000

where Fritz didn't seem to play very well. Yet in a couple of years it looks like he could beat and split a match with Kramnik and by 2006 appeared easily Kramnik's equal and possibly better.

Any computer chess fans know the story on this seemingly sharp development by Fritz?

Jan-23-14  mrbasso: Deep Fritz 14 is a marketing stunt.
It is not related to Fritz 12 in any way. It is Pandix with a new name.

Computerchess programming made a big leap forward between 2000 and 2006 and the hardware got much better as well. The improvement of Fritz (Quest) was in reality not big compared to the improvement of other engines in this period.

Jan-03-15  The Rocket: Any computer chess fans know the story on this seemingly sharp development by Fritz?

http://en.chessbase.com/post/what-s...-

Version 9 to 10 they changed the algorithms for the Kramnik match, while significantly improving the tactical search.

Version 11-13 used Old rybka code intermixed with other stuff and is a completely different engine from version 9-10. Which is why the ponderhits, eval and material value is completely revised. DF10 and DF11 belong to different "familys" of engines in ponderhits. DF11-13 is similiar to strelka/old rybka.

Versions 14 is the Pandix engine, after Fritz author Frans Morsch retired and so did the program.

Jan-03-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <Fritz versions, ratings, rankings (part 1 of 3)>

For those interested in Fritz's version and release history, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_(chess).

To get an idea of the relative strength of various Fritz versions over time, here are the ratings and rankings of selected versions according to the results of the CCRL 40/20 tournaments. CCRL is not consistent in indicating whether the engine was running on a 64-bit vs. a 32-bit computer so assume a 64-bit computer:

Feb-04-11: Version, Cores, Rating, Rank

11 4 3096 6
12 4 3087 6
10.1 4 2993 16
10 2 2953 19
10 4 2933 21
9 1 2843 29
8 2 2833 30

Jan-29-12: Version, Cores, Rating, Rank

11 4 3095 11
12 4 3087 11
13 1 3067 15
10.1 4 2992 21
10 2 2951 23
10 4 2931 26
9 1 2841 36
8 2 2831 37

Jan-14-13: Version, Cores, Rating, Rank

13 4 3052 12
11 4 3003 15
12 4 2998 16
10.1 4 2898 26
10 2 2855 29
10 4 2836 30
9 1 2746 43
8 2 2736 45

Jan-05-14: Version, Cores, Rating, Rank

14 4 3064 11
13 4 3049 15
11 4 2999 18
12 4 2994 18
10.1 4 2894 28
10 2 2851 34
10 4 2832 36
9 1 2743 50
8 2 2734 53

Jan-03-15: Version, Cores, Rating, Rank

14 4 3087 15
13 4 3048 18
11 4 2998 22
12 4 2992 22
10.1 4 2893 41
10 2 2851 47
10 4 2831 50
9 1 2743 66
8 2 2733 66

For information on other engines see http://computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/40....

Jan-03-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <Fritz versions, ratings, rankings (part 2 of 3)>

And here is the evolution of each Fritz version over time:

Version 8: Cores, Date, Rating, Rank

2 Feb-04-11 2833 30
2 Jan-29-12 2831 37
2 Jan-14-13 2736 45
2 Jan-05-14 2734 53
2 Jan-03-15 2733 66

Version 9: Cores, Date, Rating, Rank

1 Feb-04-11 2843 29
1 Jan-29-12 2841 36
1 Jan-14-13 2746 43
1 Jan-05-14 2743 50
1 Jan-03-15 2743 66

Version 10: Cores, Date, Rating, Rank

2 Feb-04-11 2953 19
4 Feb-04-11 2933 21
2 Jan-29-12 2951 23
4 Jan-29-12 2931 26
2 Jan-14-13 2855 29
4 Jan-14-13 2836 30
2 Jan-05-14 2851 34
4 Jan-05-14 2832 36
2 Jan-03-15 2851 47
4 Jan-03-15 2831 50

Version 10.1: Cores, Date, Rating, Rank

4 Feb-04-11 2993 16
4 Jan-29-12 2992 21
4 Jan-14-13 2898 26
4 Jan-05-14 2894 28
4 Jan-03-15 2893 41

Version 11: Cores, Date, Rating, Rank

4 Feb-04-11 3096 6
4 Jan-29-12 3095 11
4 Jan-14-13 3003 15
4 Jan-05-14 2999 18
4 Jan-03-15 2998 22

Version 12: Cores, Date, Rating, Rank

4 Feb-04-11 3087 6
4 Jan-29-12 3087 11
4 Jan-14-13 2998 16
4 Jan-05-14 2994 18
4 Jan-03-15 2992 22

Version 13: Cores, Date, Rating, Rank

1 Jan-29-12 3067 15
4 Jan-14-13 3052 12
4 Jan-05-14 3049 15
4 Jan-03-15 3048 18

Version 14: Cores, Date, Rating, Rank

4 Jan-05-14 3064 11
4 Jan-03-15 3087 15

Jan-03-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <Fritz versions, ratings, rankings (part 3 of 3)>

And here are some observations:

1. Version 14 (based on the Pandix engine) is the strongest Fritz version ever. So, while it might be a "marketing stunt" as indicated by <mrbasso>, at least its customers are getting a slightly stronger engine.

2. Version 11 has always been slightly better than version 12. So, in contrast to Version 14, I would suspect that version 12 customers would not be too pleased to have paid for an update and received a slightly weaker version.

3. Version 10 with 2 cores consistently outperformed version 10 with 4 cores. Again, I would imagine that any version 10 customers who upgraded their computer from 2 to 4 cores would not be too pleased to find out that their engine's strength went down as a result.

4. Version 10.1 finally got its multi-core performance right, as with 4 cores it outperformed version 10 with either 2 or 4 cores. I don't know if version 10.1 with 2 cores outperformed version 10.1 with 4 cores (no data for the 2-core version was provided), but I suspect that the Fritz developers fixed their scalability problem with version 10.1 so that the 4-core version would outperform the 2-core version.

5. The latest version of Fritz has been going slightly backward relative to other engines. The highest ranked versions (both version 11 and 12, 4-core) on Feb-04-11 were ranked #6 but the highest ranked version on succeeding years were ranked #11 (both version 11 and 12, 4-core), #12 (version 13, 4 core), #14 (version 14, 4-core), and #14 (also version 14, 4-core).

6. As should be expected as a result of lowered rankings, the rating of each version has been decreasing over time, as a result of facing increasingly stronger competition. The exception is version 14 whose rating increased by almost 20 Elo rating points between 2014 and 2015.

Happy New Year everyone!

Jan-03-15  The Rocket: <Version 11 has always been slightly better than version 12. >

The margin of error is around 10-15 elo in testing engines for rating lists. Versions 11 and 12 are thus pretty much tied. They are none the less unrelated to the previous Fritz versions. Different engines.

I have the 10.1 version and it doesn't agree with DF early continuations in the QGA game which Kramnik blundered to mate. And in the final sicilian game - the Knight mirroring maneuver - move 19. Nb1 which, Chessbase praised, it does not rate as a candidate move and elects to play something else.

In reality Kramnik faced a single processing DF, which could account for why it played remarkably shallow in the QGA game. I still found it dubious from the Chessbase team to employ standard opening lines against Kramnik, who had a version of Fritz 10 at home for his personal use in preperation for the match, and could carefully set up his own variations.

Jan-03-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <Correction:> The CCRL games were played at a time control of 40/40, not 40/20 as I indicated. They are also repeating; an engine gets 40 minutes for its first 40 moves and another 40 minutes for its next 40 moves. This way a possible time trouble scramble is somewhat reduced.

<The Rocket> I don't know why you say that the margin of error is around 10-15 Elo rating points in testing engines. The CCRL ratings are computed using the BayesElo freeware program and they provide the 95% confidence interval, so the top-ranked Komodo 8 64-bit 4CPU engine is ranked at 3303 with the 95% confidence interval being 17, meaning that there is a 5% probability that Komodo 8's true rating is below (3303 -17) = 3286 or above (3303 + 17) = 3320. But this is <not> the same as a margin of error, and both depend on the actual number of games played (which, to make matters more complicated, varies from engine to engine). So I take the easy way out and assume that the CCRL ratings are "accurate".

But I do have to admit that I am perplexed as to how CCRL calculates their rankings for their Complete List. For example, there are 6 engines ranked #3 in their latest list with ratings from 3273 (Houdini 4 64-bit 4CPU) to 3236 (Komodo TCEC 64bit 4CPU), a 37-point Elo rating differential. Fire 4 64-bit 4CPU is rated at 3226 and ranked #4, a 10-point Elo rating differential between it and Komodo TCEC 64bit 4CPU. So why is Fire 4 grouped with the 7 engines ranked #4 and not with the 6 engines ranked #3?

I think that all Fritz versions are "related" in the sense that they all go by the name Fritz, regardless of whether they contain any common code. As I said earlier, when one spends money on an engine upgrade, one expects (perhaps unreasonably) that the upgraded engine is stronger than the previous engine. If that is not the case, then I think that the engine vendors would be guilty of misrepresenting their product. Of course, the engine buyers would be remiss for not checking whether the upgraded engine is in fact stronger than the previous engine, but that's a different issue.

And I don't think that Kramnik faced a single processor Deep Fritz, at least not according to these stories by Chessbase: http://en.chessbase.com/post/deep-f... and http://en.chessbase.com/post/kramni.... In my CCRL records for Feb-04-2011 (the earliest I have) Deep Fritz 10 (2CPU) is rated at 2953, Deep Fritz 10 (4 CPU) is rated at 2933, and Fritz 10 (1 CPU) is rated at 2884, considerably lower than both Deep Fritz's. Since the Deep Fritz's were released by the time of the Kramnik match, for marketing reasons I would think that Chessbase would have insisted that the Deep Fritz multi-core version be used rather than the weaker single core Fritz version in order to maximize its chances of winning. Whether that would have made any difference in the match's outcome is anyone's guess.

Jan-03-15  The Rocket: Chessbase did not realise at the time of writing that their 10 version wasn't functioning correctly with more than 2 cores and bugged. Given that they attemped more than 2 cores, it's very likely that the bugg resulted in a performance decrease corresponding to 1 cpu, at most 2 CPU. I don't know the exact technical details, but judging from some of the games from the Kramnik match. Several DF continuations look quite dubious and weren't selected by my mere intel core duo laptop when I analysed the games with DF 10.1, in what supposedly correspond to 2 cpu. Version 10.1 corrected all of this. It's a shame they dismantled it.

As to version 12, there was no promise of elo gain in it's dvd. The interview with Fransch Morsch suggests improvements are being made, but not explicitly.

They more than made up for it with version 13 though, which is signficantly stronger. And then Frans Morsch retired.

Jan-03-15  The Rocket: Kramnik faced version 10, and the offical release of Deep fritz 10 was indeed the buggy one. 10.1 uppdate was provided online by chessbase.
Jump to page #   (enter # from 1 to 3)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other users.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific player and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2015, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies