Author: pavel
Date: 13:44:24 03/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 20, 2002 at 16:32:05, James T. Walker wrote: >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? I doubt it was, even if it did, I dont think it will make much of a differance. pavs
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.