Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:23:03 06/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2001 at 17:40:07, James T. Walker wrote: >On June 13, 2001 at 16:05:55, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On June 13, 2001 at 15:59:04, Peter Ackermann wrote: >> >>>If I compare the March-01-edition and the June-01-edition I see that not a >>>single game was played with Hiarcs 7.32 for three month now. Both lists show >>>Hiarcs 7.32 with 679 games. >>>Is Hiarcs 7.32 not attractive anymore? I myself consider Hiarcs 7.32. still one >>>of the very interesting engines and if I try engine-matches between the Tigers >>>ans Hiarcs it is not so a clear result..... I have the impression that Gambit >>>Tiger has some problems with the style of Hiarcs 7.32. So please give Hiarcs >>>7.32 a chance from time to time even if Hiarcs 8 seems to be on the way. >>> >>>Peter >> >>What is your hardware and what is the time control of your game? >> >>It is important because Hiarcs7.32 does not like the K6-450 of the ssdf and I >>also believe that it prefers also fast time control and not 2 hours/40 moves. >> >>Uri > >Hello Uri, >I have seen post by you before like this and I don't agree. I would like to >know where you get your information. The fact that hiarcs does not like the ssdf hardware is known. I was careful to say "I believe" so I may be wrong and it is based on my impression from analyzing some engine-engine games and also on the fact that I found from my experience that hiarcs has a bad branching factor at long time control. Another reason that expect Hiarcs to suffer at long time control is the fact that hiarcs cannot search more than 30-32 plies forward when the time control is not important(I understand that it is going to be fixed in Hiarcs8). I'm still running Hiarcs 7.32 on my Athlon >900 mhz machines and it still does very well against other top programs. For >instance in my "standard" database (G/60 or longer) Hiarcs 7.32 is right now >ranked tied for 6 place with Chess Tiger 13.0. It is behind Gambit Tiger >14.0,Chess Tiger 13.0, Deep Shredder and Fritz 6e/6b. This puts it ahead of >programs like Gambit Tiger 1.0, Shredder 5, CM8K(32M), Junior 6.0 and Rebel >Century 3.0. This is not a huge database. It has only 694 games but so far I >see nothing to indicate Hiarcs does not compete with the faster hardware/longer >time controls. This data does not contradict or prove the conjecture that hiarcs is better in blitz on the same hardware. The only way to test if it is worse at long time control is by comparing hiarcs7.32's result in blitz with the results of it at longer time control on the same hardware. Using the same hardware is important. The reason is that I believe that hiarcs likes the fast hardware more than other programs(my experience is that for Hiarcs PIII800 is more than 2 times faster than pIII450 when it is not the case for Deep Fritz). 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.