Author: stuart taylor
Date: 10:11:07 05/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 28, 2002 at 05:10:19, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 27, 2002 at 21:19:58, stuart taylor wrote: > >>What exactly are you doing here? >>It looks like an even better chance to see if Hiarcs proves itself, than >>testings until now. But what exactly? >>S.Taylor > > >Junior proves itself as the smarter engine in the endgame when Hiarcs evaluate >itself as almost +3 in a drawn tablebases position. > >Maybe we can find that Junior is better at longer time control based on this >test. >The probability to get evidence for it is at least the same as the probability >to get evidence that Hiarcs is better at long time control. > >I do not see something special in Hiarcs that should make it relatively better >at long time control and I do not know about an engine with some special >knowledge for long time control. > >The programmer of Hiarcs also did not claim that Hiarcs is better at long time >control so I see no reason to suspect that it is the case. > > >Uri In that case, I don't have a big enough reason to buy Hiarcs. Would YOU? So no engine is much greater at very long times? S.Taylor
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.