Author: James T. Walker
Date: 13:32:05 03/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 20, 2002 at 16:27:02, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >On March 20, 2002 at 16:14:25, James T. Walker wrote: > >>On March 20, 2002 at 16:01:24, pavel wrote: >> >>>On March 20, 2002 at 15:35:13, James T. Walker wrote: >>> >>>>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 >>> >>> >>>I am not (not anymore, but used to) interested in blitz games, so sorry to tell >>>you that I wont go through the trouble to test it. I was not only referring to >>>blitz but overall impression, even in blitz games perhaps your list (which I am >>>yet to see), is the only list I have heard of which has chesstiger better than >>>fritz7b. >>> >>>so do you have 1400 games between CT14 and Fritz7b (<-- this version I am >>>refferring to, not all the jumbled up version of fritz7)? >>>or 1400 games played seperatedly by CT14 and fritz7b >>>or list of 1400games were ct14 and fritz7b exists. >>> >>>which one? >>> >>>pavs >> >>Hello Pavs, >>My database (Blitz) consist of about 6000 games now. Of that amout Fritz 7 has >>played abou 1425 games vs various opponents. CT14 has played about 1350 games >>vs same opponents. They have played against each other about 240 games which >>has CT14 leading by about 20 ELO in those 240 games. In the overall database >>CT14 leads by only 8 ELO. So as you can see that is my experience and it is >>really too close to call but I certainly see no reason to suspect that F7 is >>stronger than CT14. >>Jim > >Program Elo + - Games Score Av.Op. Draws > > 1 Fritz 7 : 2677 18 18 993 61.9 % 2593 34.1 >% > 2 Chess Tiger 14.0 : 2654 19 16 978 57.9 % 2599 38.3 >% > 3 Deep Fritz : 2641 20 17 999 56.2 % 2598 33.4 >% > 4 Gambit Tiger 2.0 : 2631 20 15 996 55.2 % 2595 39.9 >% > 5 Junior 7 : 2623 21 17 983 54.2 % 2594 31.7 >% > 6 Deep Junior 7 : 2598 16 22 992 49.8 % 2599 32.0 >% > 7 Shredder 6 : 2598 16 22 992 49.2 % 2603 32.4 >% > 8 Hiarcs 7.32 : 2572 16 20 996 45.8 % 2601 34.2 >% > 9 GandalfUCI : 2553 50 52 145 42.4 % 2606 25.5 >% > 10 Nimzo 8 : 2544 17 19 987 41.4 % 2604 33.9 >% > 11 Crafty 18.13 : 2542 20 21 779 40.9 % 2606 32.3 >% > 12 Crafty 18.12 : 2532 37 38 228 38.2 % 2616 35.1 >% > 13 Goliath Light 1.5 : 2527 27 25 544 38.5 % 2609 26.7 >% > 14 gandalf_432h : 2518 47 43 184 37.5 % 2607 27.2 >% > >(1) Fritz 7 : 993 (+445,=339,-209), 61.9 % > >Chess Tiger 14.0 : 107 (+ 33,= 45,- 29), 51.9 % >Crafty 18.12 : 23 (+ 9,= 12,- 2), 65.2 % >Deep Fritz : 105 (+ 39,= 34,- 32), 53.3 % >Shredder 6 : 124 (+ 65,= 40,- 19), 68.5 % >Deep Junior 7 : 98 (+ 40,= 31,- 27), 56.6 % >Nimzo 8 : 85 (+ 40,= 31,- 14), 65.3 % >Junior 7 : 92 (+ 39,= 37,- 16), 62.5 % >Gambit Tiger 2.0 : 83 (+ 33,= 33,- 17), 59.6 % >Hiarcs 7.32 : 80 (+ 42,= 24,- 14), 67.5 % >Crafty 18.13 : 92 (+ 48,= 30,- 14), 68.5 % >Yace 0.99.56 : 11 (+ 4,= 2,- 5), 45.5 % >Nejmet 3.0 : 3 (+ 3,= 0,- 0), 100.0 % >Goliath Light 1.5 : 63 (+ 37,= 13,- 13), 69.0 % >gandalf_432h : 15 (+ 8,= 3,- 4), 63.3 % >GandalfUCI : 12 (+ 5,= 4,- 3), 58.3 % > >Regards >Jonas Is it not true that the above database was done on one computer with ponder off?
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.