Author: stuart taylor
Date: 17:56:36 05/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 12, 2001 at 03:55:09, Uri Blass wrote: >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Uri These results also make Chesstiger 2 look as weak as an amatuer program, or some very old outdated program. Why is this? That, for me is a much bigger question! S.Taylor
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.