Author: Ratko V Tomic
Date: 13:39:40 07/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
> Hiarcs is good at this time control. > I think that the learning bug of Hiarcs becomes a problem in > longer time control > Well, I have ran few times (out of hundreds of games) into this "bug" of Hiarcs, where it played a very risky, dubious move, and in a later analysis it couldn't reproduce it. It has clearly to do with the persistent hash. But this may not be a "bug" but merely a tradeoff. You allow it to lose few games, but on average you gain. I haven't seen any benchmarks between Hiarcs with different sizes of hash tables (from 0 and up) playing against itself, but I suspect that the net outcome would be that the table with hash would come ahead the one without hash. Of course, you will find positions where the non-hash version computes some move better, but this is still fine with the tradeoff hypothesis. >I know that the difference between Junior6 and Junior5 or Fritz6 and Fritz5.32 >is a big difference in ssdf rating. > SSDF or similar comp-comp tests tend to exaggerate the differences (relative to a wider pool of players). The newer programs play better against the fixed weaknesses of the older programs. By hitting consistently into such weaknesses they are replicating in more elaborate form of the 'killer book' theme. The ratings will thus diverge artificially, i.e. they won't diverge nearly as much in the play against IMs and GMs.
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.