Author: David Dory
Date: 01:43:00 04/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 2002 at 02:11:34, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >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. > > >-- >GCP I had not seen the post on CCC yet about Mark U.'s interview on Hiarcs8 when I replied to your post. It was from Mark, but it was regarding Hiarcs overall chess playing philosophy (especially for 7.32.)** , and it was reported in the British computer chess mag. Yes, I still believe Hiarcs7.32 got stronger relative to other programs when playing at time controls longer than blitz. I've played other engines that were that way, also. Dann C. and another poster mentioned their experience with Amy, which certainly did get stronger with longer time controls, relative to other programs. >The fact that Palm Tiger, despite an > 100x NPS advantage, can still compete >with some strong amateurs at blitz. I find it impossible to believe that Palm Tiger has a > 100x nps advantage over most good PC based programs. Don't you mean Palm Tiger has > 100x nps DISADVANTAGE? While the test with the amateurs might be influential, it can't be taken as serious testing without a lot more info. Had these amateurs played other programs at the same tc? What was their scores, how many games, what was their rating, and what percentage is _some_ 30%, 80%?, etc. Anecdotal evidence is indicative, but not something you can rely on without the imposition of rather strict standards of testing. This isn't always possible, but I'm sure you would be the first person to say "Wait a minute, this is just heresay evidence", in re-reading your paragraph regarding the amateurs and the Palm Tiger. I'll keep it in mind, however. I'm unsure why the idea that a faster chess engine would be slightly better at a blitz time control is not somewhat intuitive. At the risk of running far afield with an anology here, look at a foot race: The fastest runners do better in the sprints. The British magazine that posted the interview was "Selective Search" I believe. Dave ** As you read, Mark has swung Hiarcs8 more into the mainstream of chess programs.
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.