Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Fritz 6 vs H 7.32 > Scores at 10-20-50-100-150-200-250&306 games!

Author: blass uri

Date: 09:38:33 07/28/00

Go up one level in this thread


On July 28, 2000 at 11:26:36, Harald Faber wrote:

>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? :-)

one game is enough to prove a bug and I proved by one game of Hiarcs7.32 against
Crafty17.11(3 hours per 40 moves) that hiarcs has a learning bug(In one case
hiarcs needed a long time to solve the fail low because it failed low at depth
10 and I found after the game that if I give hiarcs only the position without
playing it fails low at depth 9 and can find a better move faster and if I play
at slower time control than 3 hours/40 moves it fails low at depth 11 and has
not enough time to search to find a better move)

There was also another move in the same game that I checked and found that I
cannot reproduce it.

I suspect that hiarcs can play better in long time control if it clears the hash
tables after every move but unfortunately I do not know about a way to do
it(learning parameter off does not help).

Uri



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.