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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

<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.

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.

https://en.chessbase.com/post/thirt...

Thirty years Happy Birthday Fritz (2):

https://en.chessbase.com/post/thirt...

Thirty years Happy Birthday Fritz (3):

https://en.chessbase.com/post/thirt...

Thirty years Happy Birthday Fritz (4):

https://en.chessbase.com/post/thirt...

Thirty years Happy Birthday Fritz (5):

Thanks for the article, <Albertan>> !