Author: Peter Berger
Date: 00:43:17 05/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 11, 2001 at 22:25:07, Steve wrote: >Thank you for posting these very interesting results. But I wonder if these >kinds of tests truly measure how well a program analyzes. I own Hiarcs 7.32, >and if you give Hiarcs 2 minutes to analyze a position and Program X 2 minutes >to analyze a position, Program X may do better. But in actual game analysis, >the fact that Hiarcs analyzes backwards (like all ChessBase products) and stores >hash tables between moves may produce game analysis of much higher quality than >Program X, if Program X has neither of those features. I'll concentrate on your subject line - no , I don't think these results tell the whole story about how well a program analyzes at all . (I think the Hiarcs problem was simply coincidence and I agree that when analyzing your games with it its ability to "learn" during the analysis is very helpful ). I do think though it tells the whole story about the ability of the program to perform well in the Larry Kaufmann test ;-) . I think this test contains some interesting positions I would like to see being solved by my favourite chessprograms as they are quite easy for middleclass human players . pete
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.