Author: Chessfun
Date: 14:54:24 03/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2001 at 17:45:17, Uri Blass wrote: >On March 06, 2001 at 16:43:10, Chessfun wrote: > >>On March 06, 2001 at 16:14:41, Ed Panek wrote: >> >>> Yes hiarcs is very good indeed. For fun try a small 232 tourney in 5 min blitz >>>and watch Hiarcs dominate the Tigers. I was using Tiger 13 on a 1245MHZ Athlon >>>and Hiarcs 7.32 w TB on a PIII 800EB and Hiarcs 7.32 won my 10 game blitz match >>>8-2. >>> >>>Ed >> >>I think fun was the right word, but maybe you should have played more games >>as I started a blitz tourney at 5 min 3" inc autoplayed on two Cel 433's in >>November which was stopped when I got my Tb's so was uncompleted. >> >>Tiger 13.0 +20 -7 =13 >>Hiarcs 7.32 +7 -20 =13 >> >>Gambit 1.0 +17 -7 =16 >>Hiarcs 7.32 +7 -17 =16 >> >>Sarah. > >I suspect that hiarcs simply does not like the celeron 433. >It is possible to test it by giving the number of nodes per second of Hiarcs and >tiger on the celeron and compare with the number of nodes per second of hiarcs >on PIII800 and the number of nodes per second of Tiger on 1245 MHZ >Athlon. Agh but I don't have the Celeron anymore. Another way would be run another 40 games on the Tb's and see what I get. I'll try that. Sarah. >I suspect that you may find that hiarcs earns more speed and it may help to >explain the results. > >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.