Author: Uri Blass
Date: 00:55:09 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 doubt it. Hiarcs has a bug in retaining hash tables and I saw cases when Hiarcs cannot see things when it analyze backwards when it can see them without analyzing backward because it learn wrong information from hash tables. This wrong learning is also a problem in games and I saw cases when Hiarcs had not enough time to solve a fail low in games because of the bug of retaining hash tables(It can solve it after enough time but practically it has not enough time) This 'enough time' can be hours if you play games at slow time control like 4 hours/40 moves. It seems that the programmer of Hiarcs only tested it in blitz so he missed bugs at long time control. 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.