Author: Harald Faber
Date: 08:26:36 07/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 28, 2000 at 11:11:33, blass uri wrote: >On July 28, 2000 at 08:07:32, Harald Faber wrote: > >>On July 28, 2000 at 06:49:44, Terry Ripple wrote: >> >>>On July 28, 2000 at 05:58:53, Terry Ripple wrote: >>> >>>>On July 28, 2000 at 03:06:29, Harald Faber wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 28, 2000 at 01:05:53, Terry Ripple wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Used an AMD K6-2, 266Mhz, 64Ram, Ponder off, 16Mb Hash per engine. >>>>>> >>>>>>If anyone cares to see some or all of the games, i will be glad to post them. >>>>>> This match shows how close the strengths are between these two fine engines! >>>>>> >>>>>>Best regards, >>>>>>Terry >>>>>> >>>>>>Blitz:5' 2000 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>1 Fritz 6 158.0/306 >>>>>>2 Hiarcs 7.32 148.0/306 >>>>> >>>>>Again for interest: What is the score after 10, 20, 50, 100 and 200 games from >>>>>your tournament? >>>> >>>>Hi Harold, >>>> It's interesting to see how the scores change, and proves that you need many >>>>games to try and determine the strengths of different engines! Here's the info: >>>> >>>>Regards,Terry >>>> >>>> >>>> Fritz 6 H7.32 >>>> Scores at 10 games : 2.5 7.5 >>>> " 20 " : 10.0 10.0 >>>> " 50 " : 26.5 23.5 >>>> " 100 " : 52.0 48.0 >>>> " 150 " : 79.5 70.5 >>>> " 200 " : 105.5 94.5 >>>> " 250 " : 130.5 119.5 >>>> " 306 " : 158.0 148.0 >>> >>> I would like to comment from the scores that it proves that at a 20 game match >>>it doesn't mean anything! Between 50 and 100 games the score for Fritz moves up >>>only slightly from a +3 to +4 points in its favor. But at 150 games the score >>>climbs considerably to a +9 point advantage over Hiarcs7.32. Then it starts >>>tapering off between the 200 and 250 games with a point advantage of +11 for >>>Fritz 6 and then drops to a +10 point advantage at 306 games. So, for two - >>>engines that are close to the same strength it shows that you need 50 to 100 >>>games, and if the engines are "extremly" close in strength it would be wise to >>>play anywhere from 150 to 200 games! This of course is based on playing 5 min. >>>per side for the whole game, as slower time controls might change this factor! >>> This of course is only from the view of a non-expert's opinion, and by - >>>presenting this information that was requested by Harold i hope to get some >>>interesting points of view from our members. >>> >>>Best regards, >>>Terry >> >> >>Hi Terry, >>Thanks a lot for the info. >>It reflects all I have expected and what I have got in my own testing games. >>I hope this info opens many eyes who conclude MUCH too early. You may get an >>idea of weaknesses or strengths of new programs or versions after few games but >>this is only subjective. >>And this result proves me right with my estimation that the top 10 programs play >>at one level. (I know that you played 5min/game but the result won't be much >>different with longer time controls) >>BTW the +10 difference in favour of Fritz after 306 games just means 51.6% >>winning percentage, that is why I say one level. > >I disagree. I knew that. :-) You almost always disagree with anything. :-) >Hiarcs is better in blitz and I expect result of 60% for Fritz6 in tournament >time control based on the ssdf rating. "Expect" is very vague and pure speculation. And BTW a possible 60%-score would not say that Fritz is stronger, this would have to be proven against other opponents too... >I discovered that hiarcs suffers from a learning bug at tournament time >control(there are cases when it needs more time to see something or cannot see >something because it does not get the right information from the hash tables) >and I guess that it is the main reason that hiarcs is worse at tournament time >control. >Uri I disagree. :-) Do you have enough games to prove this? :-)
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.