Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 04:36:10 05/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 04, 2001 at 06:33:57, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 04, 2001 at 03:30:12, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>On May 04, 2001 at 03:03:57, Tony Hedlund wrote: >> >>>On May 03, 2001 at 18:41:05, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On May 03, 2001 at 18:37:08, John Dahlem wrote: >>>> >>>>>I had for awhile thought HIARCS 7.32 was considered easily the best, but then I >>>>>read a summary from Cadaques 2000 and it seemed to be thought HIARCS was even >>>>>somewhat dumb positonally. So, what do you think? HIARCS, Shredder 5, Tiger 14, >>>>>Junior 6? >>>> >>>>According to one test suite: >>>>http://home.interact.se/~w100107/fentest.htm >>>> >>>>These are the top ten: >>>>AnMon 5.07 AMD K6-2 450 >>>>SOS AMD K6-2 450 >>>>Rebel 10b AMD K6-2 450 >>>>Nimzo 3 P90 >>>>Rebel Gambit II AMD K6-2 450 >>>>Rebel Tiger 14 AMD K6-2 450 >>>>Nimzo 3.5 P90 >>>>Hiarcs 7.32 AMD K6-2 450 >>>>Shredder 4 AMD K6-2 450 >>>>Phalanx XXII AMD K6-2 450 >>> >>>You can also check this test: >>> >>>http://home.bip.net/gunnar.blomstrand/topplista_64.htm >>> >>>This test is from the book "Spiel mit - gegen Grossmeister" by Emil Gelenczei. >>>64 games which all are judged. 1047 positions in 8 categories were every group >>>gets 400 points. The idea is to see which program is best in analysing human >>>games. The time is 40/2 3 min/move. The computer is a Celeron 450 with 128 cache >>>and 64 MB. >>> >>> Program Rating Points >>>01 Gandalf 4.32f 2617 2120 >>>02 Fritz 5.0 2591 2099 >>>03 Gambit Tiger 1 2590 2098 >>>04 Fritz 6.0 2585 2094 >>>05 Junior 5.0 2571 2083 >>>06 Rebel 10 2561 2075 >>>07 Nimzo 2000 2560 2074 >>>08 Chess Tiger 13 2540 2058 >>>09 Zarkov 5.0 2536 2055 >>>10 Genius 6.5 2529 2049 >>> >>>As you can see, the Rebel/Tiger programs is on both lists. >>> >>>Tony >> >>Very nice Tony. Can these positions be downloaded? >> >>Finally something else than tactical positions. >> >>Ed > >The main problem with positional test is the fact that I doubt if the solutions >is correct. > >I think that there should be some proof that the solutions are correct(for >example comp-comp games from the positions after the right and comp-comp games >from positions after other computer moves). > >If I see that computer programs perform better after the solution move it may be >an evidence that the solution move is correct. > >I do not trust the impression of humans in a lot of cases. > >Uri I agree you can learn a lot from comp-comp games and find weaknesses. The advantage of human postional games is it will reveal OTHER weaknesses you will never see in comp-comp games. So for me the 2 go hand in hand. Ed
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.