Author: irv
Date: 18:38:06 08/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 16, 2002 at 07:00:40, Chuck wrote: >I can no longer find the exact text, but as I recall the author of Hiarcs 8 >claimed the search algorithm was greatly improved to avoid the "explosion" of >the search tree at great depths. This appears to me to be a false claim. > >I run alot of deep analysis with Junior 7, Fritz 7, Chess Tiger 14, Gambit Tiger >2, Shredder 6, Rebel Century 4, Gandalf 5 and Hiarcs 8. Often I let a program >analyze a single position for 2-4 days. All seem to handle this well except >Hiarcs, which is completely incapable. It seems there is a certain point where >the nps dramatically drops on Hiarcs. All the computers I use are 1.2 - 1.5 GHz >with 256-512 MB RAM, and Hiarcs will usually report 150-200 kn/s, but after a >day or more this figure will drop dramatically. Right now I'm looking at another >computer where it has been analyzing a position for 45:19:56 and it is reporting >23 kn/s! I've seen it drop further, to 10-15 kn/s where I kill it. This may >always happen (haven't really tracked it, normally I just give up on Hiarcs >after it wastes so much of my time). I used to and would like to still be a >Hiarcs fan, but this is a significant problem IMO. > >It seems to me the tree "explosion" is still a big, big problem and the author's >claim was false. My evidence suggests Hiarcs is crippled at deep analysis. well the only question i have is does any of those programs change their minds between 16 ply and 17 ply seems to me programs very rarely change their minds after about 15 ply . if you played a big match between fritz7 at 15 ply vs fritz7 at 17 ply and the match was 100 games . in my opinion the actual result in the match would have more to do with who got the better oppenings than who searched 2 ply deeper .
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.