Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 23:11:34 04/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 2002 at 19:40:00, David Dory wrote: >The programmer for Hiarcs stated point number 2. Perhaps you could throw your >considerable logic at him? The closest I can find is this: The Hiarcs 7.32 search was prone to exploding in the middle game at depths beyond ten plies and this resulted in a search which did not take good advantage of today's machines. I can read into this as saying that the engine did not perform well when given a long time to think. Which amounts to saying that it did not play well at _longer_ timecontrols or when machines got _faster_. This is *directly* in contradiction to your own statement about Hiarcs just one post earlier. I don't really see the statement on the ChessBase as a factual conlcusion, since it's in the middle of the salestalk for the program and there isn't any data to back it up. >My point was that relatively faster engines will perform somewhat better than >relatively slower one's, I don't believe this is true. >>What you said implies that Hiarcs gets stronger at longer timecontrols, which >is haven't seen any evidence for . . . > >ALL programs get stronger with more time to think, what the heck are you saying? >Are you saying Hiarcs plays worse when given longer to think? Change 'stronger' into 'relatively stronger compared to other programs' in my sentence. >I don't have an interest in the palm, or follow those posts - so I have no idea >what clue you're referring to here. The fact that Palm Tiger, despite an > 100x NPS advantage, can still compete with some strong amateurs at blitz. -- GCP
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.