Author: Joshua Lee
Date: 08:36:09 07/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 26, 2001 at 11:15:04, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >On July 26, 2001 at 10:47:21, Joshua Lee wrote: > >>Sometimes it is like pulling teeth to get an answer around here but maybe i >>should rephrase my original question: >> >>Can i get some estimates please I am not trying to say one program is better >>than another because it searches 2million nodes a second or 5 ply at tournament >>time controls, I Would like to know which programs are the quote en quote "Slow >>Searchers" I wouldn't include Gandalf or Deep Fritz as they easily get over >>200Kn on most hardware as does Crafty. >> >> >>Thankyou > >Ok, Joshua. My apologies to you since i didn't read correctly your question. >BTW Where is the point in getting a "slow searcher" when everybody knows that >the true power of a chess program is in superior tactics, not certainly in a >better positional understanding. If I remember well, several tries to optimize >the positional knowledge disadvantaging the search deepness gave unsatisfactory >outcomes. > >Regards. I am interested namely because the more knowledge will pay off in the long run. The "Slow" programs will not be so slow when powerfull enough hardware comes out. On the same token you can say the Speed Monsters will be That much faster too. I am not sure how much Depth is needed for a Program Like Hiarcs to See Tactically what Fritz can but I might have a good idea when i run some tests. They will not be 100% accurate but it will be a good guess though Hiarcs 8 should be better both Positionally and Tactically.
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.