Author: Timothy J. Frohlick
Date: 09:34:31 09/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
Eran, Your comments about Mark Uniacke's program were mostly correct. I run Hiarcs 7.32 on a lowly PII 333 64Mb. To be considered intelligent you have to get 35 out of 35 and solve each in less than 10 seconds. That will soon happen. It is fun watching the continual improvement of these programs. Hiarcs 7.32 is a very good program but you ain't seen nothin yet. I wonder what this program will do on a P IV 1.7 Ghz machine with a 4OO Mhz internal bus with 512 Mb RAM and full six men tablebases plus a 10 million move opening book? OK,maybe just a full five man EGTB with a few select six men EGTB options. Tim Frohlick On September 22, 2000 at 11:02:29, Eran wrote: > >I ran the Louguet II test suite on my computer Pentium 166 MMX 72 MB RAM. I had >four chess programs that ran on that suite; they were: > >1) Hiarcs 7.32 >2) Fritz6a >3) Junior6a >4) Crafty 17.11 > >The four chess programs above ran under default settings of the 'Process >testsets' in the Fritz GUI. The maximum time for each position is 10 minutes, >according to the instructions in the Louguet II test suite file. In addition, I >turned off Automatic AntiVirus feature and others in order not to disturb >running the test suite. Also, no other applications were running while the test >suite was running. > >I chose the Louguet II test suite, because it contained three kinds of >positions: positional, tactic, and endgame. It just gives nice comparison >results between chess programs, although I understand this does not give >accurate Elo rating results. I would run other test suites to give more >interesting comparison results. > >Please see the complete results of the test suite below: > >(All the four chess programs ran without endgame tablebases.) > >1) Hiarcs 7.32 (2585 Elo rating) (48 MB hashtables) >Result: 27 out of 35 = 77%. Average time = 58s/181s > >(The lower percentage number is better.) >Positional - 29.46% (3 not solved) >Tactic - 26.97% (2 not solved) >Endgame - 36.11% (2 not solved) > >2) Fritz6a (2545 Elo rating) (48 MB hashtables) >Result: 26 out of 35 = 74%. Average time = 45s/187s > >Positional - 38.52% (5 not solved) >Tactic - 27.67% (3 not solved) >Endgame - 24.94% (1 not solved) > >3) Junior6a (2450 Elo rating) (48 MB hashtables) >Result: 23 out of 35 = 65%. Average time = 38s/230s > >Positional - 51.43% (7 not solved) >Tactic - 31.17% (3 not solved) >Endgame - 28.00% (2 not solved) > >4) Crafty 17.11 (2395 Elo rating) >(32 MB hashtables due to Crafty's limit) >Result: 23 out of 35 = 65%. Average time = 38s/230s > >Positional - 47.77% (5 not solved) >Tactic - 30.94% (2 not solved) >Endgame - 44.02% (3 not solved) > >Conclusion: > >Hiarcs 7.32 is the strongest. The second is Fritz6a, the third is Junior6a, and >the last Crafty 17.11. > >1) Hiarcs 7.32 (2585 Elo rating) >2) Fritz6a (2545 Elo rating) >3) Junior6a (2450 Elo rating) >4) Crafty 17.11 (2395 Elo rating) > >Best positional play: Hiarcs 7.32 >Best tactic play: Hiarcs 7.32 >Best endgame play: Fritz6a > >Worst positional play: Junior6a >Worst tactic play: Junior6a >Worst endgame play: Crafty 17.11 > >The endgame play of Hiarcs 7.32 is somewhat poor, but the Nalimov tablebases >enhances the strength of Hiarcs 7.32. > >Eran
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.