Author: stuart taylor
Date: 06:47:39 06/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 02, 2002 at 03:59:54, Uri Blass wrote: >On June 02, 2002 at 03:56:46, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On June 01, 2002 at 19:54:20, stuart taylor wrote: >> >>>On June 01, 2002 at 19:36:36, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On June 01, 2002 at 18:05:10, stuart taylor wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 31, 2002 at 18:27:58, Ron Langeveld wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 31, 2002 at 06:50:56, stuart taylor wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>For me, the experiment is over. Hiarcs does not look especially great at higher >>>>>>>time controls. Even if it would win a match like this (although it is looking a >>>>>>>bit doubtful) it is clear that it does not excell at this time allowance. >>>>>>> Maybe at an hour per move it would, but the indications for that are also >>>>>>>nothing special, as this is not showing any movement in that direction either. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>So, in spite of the one or two brilliances which Hiarcs 8.0 might be capable >>>>>>>of, as written about in Uniaks article, I don't know if I want to buy it for >>>>>>>that alone. >>>>>>>S.Taylor >>>>>> >>>>>>Too bad you are only looking at "statistics" from 5 (?) games instead of using >>>>>>your own knowledge of chess in order to evaluate what Hiarcs' strongpoints are. >>>>>>Imho it is not the tournament book, because that really sucks, so for starters >>>>>>it should have been replaced. >>>>> >>>>>With the results starting off like this, it is hard to believe that Hiarcs will >>>>>have atleast 75% wins over Fritz even after 1000 games. >>>> >>>>I could tell you it before the match. >>>> >>>>It is hard to believe that a top program that does not get at least 60% at blitz >>>>against the top programs can suddenly get more than 75% at long time control. >>>> >>>>I believe that there are programs that earn more from time but the difference is >>>>usually small unless there is a significant bug(for example a program that >>>>always lose on time or always search depth 1 at blitz and it is not the case >>>>with Hiarcs). >>>> >>>>I also see no reason to suspect that Hiarcs8 earns more from time before the >>>>match(unless you compare it with Hiarcs7.32 that had bugs for long time >>>>control). >>>> >>>> >>>>I think that as someone from Israel it is better if you ask the question if >>>>Junior,Genesis or Movei earn more from time relative to other engines. >>>> >>>>I suspect that Movei earns more from time than the english program monarch(both >>>>programs are free winboard programs) but I am not sure because I have not enough >>>>data to know. >>>> >>>>Both programs play in the 5th division and movei has 9.5/14 when monarch has >>>>7/14(movei beated monarch in the match between them 1.5-.5). >>>> >>>>I may get more data about the difference between them at 40/40 when the >>>>tournament is finished. >>>> >>>>It may be interesting if somebody can do a tournament with both programs at 1 >>>>minute/40 moves(I suspect that Monarch is better at that time control but I have >>>>not enough data to be sure). >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>Yes, I DO ask all that. >>>I'm also interested to know which program is the Greatest at long times, or >>>correspondence, analyis, at all, not only relatively. "Relatively" might stop at >>>some stage. >>>Which ever it is, is a good pogram for everything, when Hardware gets much >>>faster. >>>(I don't get the Israeli chess magazine anymore. I used to get it a long time >>>ago. I didn't know about the freeware engines). >>>S.Taylor >> >>The israeli free programs are not mentioned in the israeli chess magazine >> >>Here is a link for the divisions: >> >>http://home.hccnet.nl/leo.dijksman/index.html ><snipped> >>Some comments: >>Both Movei and Monarch played in the 5th division and were promoted. > >The second Israeli free engine is Genesis and I mentioned >Monarch only because of the comparison about earning from time. > >I do not think that Movei earns more from time than Genesis. > >Uri
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.