Author: Jorge Pichard
Date: 11:55:16 05/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 13, 2002 at 13:26:40, James T. Walker wrote:
>On May 13, 2002 at 13:21:59, Terry McCracken wrote:
>
>>On May 13, 2002 at 11:45:13, James T. Walker wrote:
>>
>>>On May 13, 2002 at 11:35:58, Terry McCracken wrote:
>>>
>>>>On May 13, 2002 at 11:23:12, James T. Walker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On May 13, 2002 at 09:26:55, Chessfun wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.elhchess.demon.co.uk/ehss.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>.............BCF Elo.. Program
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1 260 2686 Fritz7
>>>>>> 2 259 2670 Hiarcs8 (236 games from many sources)
>>>>>> 3 257 2656 Gambit Tiger2.0
>>>>>> 4 256 2653 Deep Fritz6
>>>>>> 5 256 2652 Chess Tiger14
>>>>>> 6 255 2640 Shredder6/632
>>>>>> 7 253 2630 Junior7
>>>>>> 8 253 2624 Gambit Tiger1.0
>>>>>> 9 252 2623 Fritz6a
>>>>>>10 252 2617 Rebel Century4 (236 games)
>>>>>>11 250 2605 Rebel Tiger12.0
>>>>>>12 250 2603 Junior6a
>>>>>>13 249 2599 Shredder5/532
>>>>>>14 248 2587 Hiarcs732
>>>>>>15 246 2574 Hiarcs 7.1
>>>>>>16 246 2572 Nimzo8
>>>>>>17 246 2568 Gandalf5
>>>>>>18 245 2566 Nimzo 732
>>>>>>19 245 2560 Fritz532
>>>>>>20 244 2556 Chessmaster 6000/7000
>>>>>
>>>>>I wonder if they have a different Hiarcs 8 program than I do??????
>>>>>Jim
>>>>
>>>>No. However, these are human vs. computer games.
>>>>
>>>>Moreover, your comp. vs. comp. games, seems inconsistent to other comp. vs.
>>>>comp. games, and it makes wonder what are you doing that may have an adverse
>>>>effect with Hiarcs 8?
>>>>
>>>>Terry
>>>
>>>Hello Terry,
>>>First of all they are NOT all human/computer games. Many are comp/comp games.
>>>Second, I also would like to know what I'm doing to make Hiarcs 8 play so bad.
>>>However I have posted ALL games except for I belive 1 set and they are open for
>>>inspection/complaints/recommendations. Also most inconsistent result compared
>>>to mine are engine/engine games with ponder off. That in my opinion is a very
>>>questionable way to test engines. Of course if you are only trying to prove
>>>which engine is best with ponder off and each engine competing for cpu time on 1
>>>cpu then that's fine. I just don't believe it's a real world situation. If you
>>>or anyone else can tell me what I'm doing wrong to cause Hiarcs 8 to play
>>>terrible I will be very happy! Just remember that I am occasionally switching
>>>computers and so when Hiarcs loses to Fritz by 8-4 on one computer it has also
>>>lost to Chess Tiger by 8.5-3.5 when using the computer that Fritz used before.
>>>Please inspect the games and tell me what is wrong with my setup or with Hiarcs
>>>8 program.
>>>Jim
>>
>>Jim I really don't know, I don't have enough data to formulate a conclusion.
>>
>>What concerns me is you have made statements that may indeed hurt the sales
>>of HIARCS 8 thus the programmer Mark Uniacke, however unintentional.
>>
>>Keep testing, but try long T/C's and very fast ones as well. Game 60' seems to
>>not do H8 any justice? Still I can't be certain it wouldn't do better over time?
>>
>>It's still just too early to form any conclusions about H8 at this time.
>>
>>Regardless, it is still a very strong engine, _apparently_ stronger than it's
>>predecessor H7.32, according to early tests on this board.
>>
>>I do suspect that H8 would benefit from very long T/C's on very fast hardware.
>>
>>However it would be nice if Mark Uniacke, would comment at this forum. It might
>>clarify some issues on H8?
>>
>>Terry
>
>Hello Terry,
>Thanks for your comments. I will shut up about Hiarcs 8 but the games speak for
>themselves. I will try some blitz games where others have posted good results
>but they were using one computer with ponder off. I don't believe this is a
>good test method because it is not a real situation that the programs would
>normally be used in. I believe the auto232 setup is best. Maybe I will get on
>the server and see if Hiarcs 8 does better on the server. Problem there is you
>don't know what hardware you are playing against.
>Jim
Event "Blitz:60'/Athlon 1.4G/512M"]
>>[Site "?"]
>>[Date "2002.05.12"]
>>[Round "2"]
>>[White "Crafty 18.13"]
>>[Black "Hiarcs 8"]
>>[Result "1-0"]
>>[ECO "C50"]
>>[Annotator "-0.01"]
>>[PlyCount "269"]
>>[EventDate "2002.04.16"]
>
>>{128MB, Hiarcs8.ctg. Athlon 1.4G/512M
>>} 1. e4 {0} 1... e5 {0} 2. Bc4 {0} 2...
>>Nf6 {0} 3. Nc3 {0} 3... Bc5 {0} 4. Nf3 {0} 4... d6 {0} 5. d3 {0} 5... Nc6 {0}
>>6. O-O {0} 6... Na5 {0} 7. Bb3 {last book move 91} 7... O-O {
>>151kN/s -0.01/12 160} 8. Na4 {(Ba4) 91} 8... Bb6 {60kN/s 0.01/13 198} 9. Nxb6 {
>>(Bg5) 87} 9... axb6 {170kN/s -0.03/12 41} 10. Ba4 {(Be3) 43} 10... Nc6 {
>>155kN/s -0.02/12 118} 11. c3 {(Bb3) 84} 11... Bg4 {165kN/s -0.12/12 79} 12. Bc2
>>{(Bb3) 82} 12... h6 {151kN/s -0.05/11 83} 13. h3 {1} 13... Bh5 {
>>146kN/s -0.03/12 88} 14. Qe2 {(Bb3) 1} 14... d5 {55kN/s -0.11/12 95}
>
>
>55 kNodes!
SOMETHING is definitively wrong with your machine even my Celeron 433 Mhz
produces a higher KNodes.
Pichard.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.