Author: George Sobala
Date: 10:24:58 05/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 03, 2002 at 10:21:24, Uri Blass wrote: > >Your reply suggest that you do not see his point. > >He claims that hiarcs was unable to find a positional plan in the nunn2 match >that an average human has no problem to see. > >He did not claim that hiarcs was unable to find tactical ideas. > > >I also do not see how +8 -3 against Fritz6 at 10 0 suggests that hiarcs is doing >better at longer time control. > >This is a fantastic result in blitz time control. > >I guess that hiarcs was lucky because you need to be clearly better than Fritz7 >to expect 8-3 against Fritz6 and Hiarcs8 is not clearly better than Fritz7 based >on other posts and it even lost 2-0 against yace at time control that is clearly >slower than 10 0 and yace is clearly weaker than Fritz7. > >Uri In that case I probably misunderstand the nature and purpose of the Nunn positions. I thought they were a set of dynamic unclear positions with chances for each side. I didn't realise there was a positional solution clear to an average human player. Or do I still misunderstand? As for the 10 0: I agree this is a fast time control. My earlier statement related to bullet settings of 2 0 or 1 0 where Hiarcs8 suffers. A further example of this is its performance on the Playchess server when run under two different systems: on a virtual K6/2-450 it has an ELO around 2075, whilst on the Duron/800 it is getting about 2450-2500. The Duron/800 calculates about 3.5x as many nodes per second in the same position as the K6-2/450. The ELO improvement of around 400 points seems excessive for a 3.5x speed difference. Most of the games the engine has played on Playchess are at 5 2 or 10 2 settings. George
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.