Author: Manfred Meiler
Date: 11:19:40 06/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 16, 2002 at 13:00:04, Mike S. wrote: >Both engines were compared using a big and difficult test suite >(Weltmeister-Test; 90 positions of which are 35 king attack, 32 positional and >23 endgame) on > >Athlon TB 1400, 256 MB hash each: > >Hiarcs 7.32 Hiarcs 8 >(19.5.1999) (15.4.2002) >------------------------- >solved 37 solved 48 >rating 2615 rating 2647 >------------------------- >(Results by M.Meiler, CSS 3/2002) > >http://www.computerschach.de/test/index.htm > >All positions are from games of World Chess Champions. Test design by >H.J.Schumacher & Dr. M.Gurevich. > >15 Minutes per position (which indicates how difficult the test ist, when even >under that conditions only ~50% were solved). H8 was much better in the king >attack part of the test (+7). Best engine in the WM-Test so far are Fritz >7.0.0.6 and CM8000 "Pillen" with 62 solutions each. > >People who have Hiarcs 8 and want to do a *quick* comparison - approx. ½ hour >necessary in total - can use my Quicktest: 24 positions, 1 minute test time >each. It includes results from Hiarcs 7.32 for comparison (P3/700), among >others: > >http://meineseite.i-one.at/PermanentBrain/quick/quicke.htm > >I'd be interested how H8 does in that test, too. > >Regards, >M.Scheidl Hello Mike, two little corrections to "WM-Test" test suite: a) 20 minutes analyze time per position b) in my Excel sheet with detailed results of 74 engines at the above mentioned link http://www.computerschach.de/test/index.htm the results of Hiarcs 8 are missing yet (will be published in a few weeks). Regards, Manfred
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.