Author: James T. Walker
Date: 12:35:13 03/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 20, 2002 at 14:54:44, pavel wrote: >On March 20, 2002 at 13:07:55, James T. Walker wrote: > >>On March 20, 2002 at 10:26:08, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >> >>>On March 20, 2002 at 09:43:45, James T. Walker wrote: >>> >>>>On March 20, 2002 at 06:24:14, Steve Maughan wrote: >>>> >>>>>The version of HIARCS used is the new one - HIARCS 8, which may well be up with >>>>>the top engines. It has been planned for release any time now. According to >>>>>sources close to HIARCS the ChessBase company rates the new HIARCS engine second >>>>>only to Fritz 7. We'll have to see but it has been a while since HIARCS 7.32 >>>>>was launched (May 99) and Mark Uniacke could have made quite a bit of progress >>>>>in the last three years. >>>>> >>>>>Steve >>>> >>>>" ChessBase company rates the new HIARCS engine second only to Fritz 7." >>>> >>>>That's interesting. I didn't know that. I think it's funny since I rate Fritz >>>>7 second only to Chess Tiger 14.0. Never the less, I'm looking forward to the >>>>new Hiarcs. >>>>Jim >>> >>>Chesstiger 14.0 is very strong, but all my testings and others i have seen too, >>>indicates that Fritz 7b is actually the strongest of the two. >>> >>>Regards >>>Jonas >> >>Hello Jonas, >>You may be right but, I believe most of the testing you are referring to was >>done on one computer with ponder off. In my opinion the only thing you prove >>with this setup is which is stronger in this setup. This setup is not a "real >>world" situation. No programs actually compete this way except in these home >>test. I am basically referring to "Blitz" time controls since that is where I >>have the most "experience". In my database Chess Tiger 14.0 is still about 8 >>points ahead of Fritz 7 and both have played 1300/1400 + games vs various >>opponents using two Athlon computers/auto232. In my "Action" database which is >>mostly game/25 or game/30 minutes Chess Tiger is leading Fritz 7 by 19 ELO but I >>have less than 200 games each. In my "Standard" database Fritz 7 is leading CT >>14 by more than 50 points but again I only have150/200 games each. These >>databases where the number of games is low is very volatile since the next >>series of games by either program tends to change the rating by fairly large >>amounts. Basically I'm leaving the "longer" time control testing up to SSDF >>since they can do much more than I can. The bottom line for me is that they are >>so close that we may never know for sure which is strongest. But it's OK for us >>to have different opinions and its understandable since we have different >>experiences. >>Regards, >>Jim > >I have seen many test set up in many types of machine including blitz and >standard, in one or two machine and with ponder=on and off, in many rating >lists. I perticipate in all top ICS, (iregularly), and from the results on fritz >ICS server from several 100s opponents playing with several humdreds setups with >fritz7, I can only say fritz7 is better than shredder6 as well as it is than >chesstiger 14. > >this is a "fact". > >you might want to check up this thread. >http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?218204 > >;) > >pavs I read it and see no proof that Fritz 7 is better than CT14. It is certainly much better than Shredder 6 (any version) at blitz. I believe my 1400 games on auto232 is more proof than you show. It says there is only 7 points difference between CT14 and F7 at blitz. Show me your 1400 games and I will compare. All my games are on equal hardware (2 Athlon 1.4G machines) with ponder on. Still as I said in the other post everyone is entinled to their opinion. I just believe my opinion is based on more facts than others. Jim
This page took 0.01 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.