Author: Jorge Pichard
Date: 12:36:09 05/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 13, 2002 at 14:55:16, Jorge Pichard wrote:
>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.
Hiarcs 8 (2680) - Nimzo 8 (2655) [E05]
Athlon 1.2 Ghz, Blitz:60' My Place (3), 11.05.2002
W=15.8 ply; 168kN/s
B=17.0 ply; 826kN/s
Hiarcs 8 (2585) - Nimzo 8 (2554)
Celeron 433 Mhz, Blitz:60' My Place (3), 13.05.2002
W=12.9 ply; 63kN/s
B=13.9 ply; 290kN/s
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.