Author: Uri Blass
Date: 17:09:33 09/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 10, 2003 at 19:18:24, Christophe Theron wrote: >On September 10, 2003 at 03:38:08, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On September 10, 2003 at 03:15:29, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On September 10, 2003 at 00:01:19, Mike Byrne wrote: >>> >>>>On September 09, 2003 at 23:25:59, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 09, 2003 at 20:47:19, Mike Byrne wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>http://www.chessgenius.com/pc/ >>>>>> >>>>>>New features of version 7.1 >>>>>>Improved graphics: >>>>>>Better support for high resolution displays. >>>>>>Addition piece sets. >>>>>> >>>>>>Author: Richard Lang, one of the great Chess Programmers from the early years. >>>>>> >>>>>>I currently have Chess Genius 3 installed on my Win2K machine thanks to this >>>>>>link. >>>>>> >>>>>>webpage >>>>>>http://www.gambitchess.com/progr.htm >>>>>> >>>>>>direct link >>>>>>http://www.gambitchess.com/pub/cg3dos.zip >>>>>> >>>>>>Although I am registered use Chess Genius 3, my disk has gone bad a long time >>>>>>ago. I believe Chess Genius 3 will still do reasonanbly well against many of >>>>>>the top programs today on equal hardware at fast time controls. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>No I'm sorry, it always loses with a significant margin. Even if you play >>>>>bullet. You have to use very slow hardware and fast time controls and you will >>>>>indeed see it do "reasonably well". But on todays hardware, even at fast time >>>>>controls I would not say that Genius is still competitive. >>>> >>>> >>>>That surprises me -- but if you say so. At longer time controls does it do >>>>better on faster hardware -- or is strictly short tc games on slow hardware? >>> >>> >>> >>>When you use faster hardware (or longer time controls, that's the same), Genius >>>is even less competitive. >> >>It is not exactly the same. >>There are programs that earn more speed from faster hardware. >> >>Genius was written when the old hardware was used so it is logical to expect it >>to be relatively faster in old hardware. >> >>It may be interesting also to compare time for solution in old hardware and in >>new hardware. >> >>Maybe you may find that new programs are 10 times faster on the new hardware >>when Genius is only 5 times faster. >> >>> >>>My own experience. >>> >>>Chess Genius has a kind of "explosive" power. It will find some combinations in >>>0.01s when other programs need 0.5s on modern hardware. But from then it gets >>>worse. In general if you expect a modern program to need one minute to find a >>>combination, expect Genius to need 2 or more. >>> >>>I have an idea about the origin of this problem, but I'm not certain. >> >>I think that one problem is that genius(at least genius3) limit its extensions. >>selective search cannot be more than 12 plies. >> >>There are cases when you need to extend more than 12 plies in order to solve >>hard combinations. >> >>Uri > > > >I'm not sure if the so-called "selective search" part of Genius is limited this >way. I'm also not sure if the "non selective" part is selective or not. So in >the end it's very hard to tell what is meant by "selective part" in Genius. > >But anyway I don't think it is relevant in this case. Even if extensions are >limited to 12 plies it's not a real handicap. Maybe limiting them to 3 or 4 >plies would be, but 12 is high enough to hardly notice any problem. > > > > Christophe The following position was posted by dana some days ago when genius cannot see the mate even after hours when chessmaster see it immediately. [D]4r1r1/bB4p1/8/2p1kPKn/n7/3R4/3P4/2B5 w - - It is clear that with only 12 plies of extension you are not going to see mate in 16 in a reasonable time. It is logical to give more plies of extension with more time and genius extensions seem to be limited. 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.