Author: Mike S.
Date: 18:48:42 09/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 28, 2003 at 17:59:35, Drexel,Michael wrote: >Q: Why? >A: to get an idea which programs are best suitable for interactive Analysis. > >Demand: solution time <1 min even for "tough" positions. The same condition is used in my Quicktest, which is for tactics only (or mainly): http://meineseite.i-one.at/PermanentBrain/quick/quicke.htm >(...) LCT II(few tough positions), 60 secs, 1 extra ply: 1 extra ply only will produce results including "wrong" solutions, i.e. when an engine decides for the correct move after 4 plies, keep it during the 5th, but switches back to a wrong move i.e. from ply 6 to 9, eventually coming back at ply 10 after 17 seconds... (or may be never again withing 60 secs!). - It's better to limit the time only, and set extra ply to 99. By that, only solutions should be counted which are kept until the testing time limit. (In my tests with such a short testing time per position, I even test manually, not using testsuite automatics.) I think this is comparable with the analysis situation - with solutions unkown in practise! :-)) - where you won't want to take the move an engine displays after one or two seconds as an analysis result already, but at least wait a bit longer to see if and how the engine's calculations "stabilize" after a somewhat longer time (even in "quick" interactive analysis). But your results correspond with known "calculation strenghts" of engines, with CM_Pillen and other CM Settings being very good, also the new Hiarcs 9 which ranks #1 in my Quicktest results now. Still very strong in that type of positions is Nimzo 8, too. (I didn't test the complete range of top engines.) Regards, M.Scheidl
This page took 0.01 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.