Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 19:00:58 09/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 22, 2003 at 16:12:09, Sally Weltrop wrote: >On September 22, 2003 at 13:49:28, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On September 22, 2003 at 10:14:48, Sally Weltrop wrote: >> >>>From what I have seen H9 justs mauls Shredder. A lot of X's Shredder doesn't >>>even see it coming until it is too late. Looks like H9 evaluation is more in >>>line with what u could expect in real life if a position is played properly. >>> >>>Hats off to Mark and his hard work in making a fine engine. Ohh I forgot one >>>other thing. I used 128 MB hash for HIARCS 9 when it's optimized for 192 so it >>>still did good. >>> >>>This engine WILL be #1 in the future SSDF lists. >> >>You have made your prediction of a 40/2 contest based on a handful of blitz >>games. >> >>It may be stronger, but your test environment cannot predict SSDF outcomes >>because it is grotesquely different. > >Not that much different. if HIARCS8 played Shredder 7.04 to a standstill and >this ver (9) is doing a number on it ... I think it's logical to say it'll b >much better. Is HIARCS9 going to do worse with more time? probably Shredder will >get stronger, maybe HIARCS9 will too. Just wait & see >> >>IMO-YMMV I am curious to know whether or not HIARCS jumps quickly to a "high" ply depth the way DJ seems to do [on my single processor machine.] Perhaps it uses some innovative/novel pruning in the beginning? Perhaps a chess engine which does very well at extremely fast games might do so because it's programmer made it immediately cull out "obviously weak" moves in the initial searching. Some of the moves culled out may be considered later if more time is allowed? Perhaps the HIARCS programmer could answer this. The fact that HIARCS does well at blitz is not insignificant. Many internet games are blitz games. However . . . My use for chess engines is analysis, where each move is considered for several or many minutes. If anybody has run such very slow games/analysis with HIARCS, I would like to know the results. If HIARCS becomes one of the top engines for slow chess, I will run to the store and purchase it post haste and start doing comparisons [during game analysis] of it with the other top engines. This re-opens "Pandora's Box" regarding the issue of whether or not any chess engines are deliberately programmed to play differently in fast games when compared to the way they are programmed to play in slow games. In other words, the search [& other] algorithms used might be different for the fast and slow cases. Position evaluation might use a simplified algorithm for speed chess simply to save time. I have not seen a definitive answer to this question although I recall Hyatt saying something about this sort of thing for Crafty. If algorithm choices are built into the engine software as a function of the speed setting, then the results in speed chess may be a poor indicator of performance in slow chess. Bob D.
This page took 0.02 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.