Author: Jeroen van Dorp
Date: 15:57:04 09/26/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 26, 2003 at 12:22:27, Alexander Yates wrote: >Conclusion after 200 games, H9 @ Blitz is _no_ stronger then H8! No real rating >gain...this is truly a disappointment, as I expected no less then a 50 pt. gain. _You_ find it disappointing that a chess engine like Hiarcs isn't optimized for blitz play. However given the extra chess knowledge put into the program, compromizing tactical calculation speed, it could be quite logical it's worse in short time controls, and good in longer time controls. Anyone reading the specs or following the development of the engine could come to such a conclusion. >Hopefully, others here will test H9 against H8 In a simple test suite (LCTII) Hiarcs 9 came out 100 points stronger than H8. >Still, my findings came as a surprise and I'm certain that Hiarcs 9 needs an >optimized book, as the default book didn't do it any favours. Why would Hiarcs 8 Bareev do any better with the same book? You suggest it's engine strenght, not book problems. What makes you think the book makes the engine of H9 weaker than H8? >ChessBase are you listening? At least they listened to me. Or is every chess engine destined to cater only people who just want to play a version of chess called blitz? Is performance at normal time control secondary, and blitz performance becoming the rule? Will it still be possible in the future to bring chess engines on the market that can be used to analyse a position, or play a strong game of normal chess? J.
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.