Author: Alexander Yates
Date: 19:03:00 09/26/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 26, 2003 at 18:57:04, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: >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. They could...but I don't think this is entirely accurate. It also doesn't really explain why H8 Bareev performed much better than H9 in blitz, against H8. > >>Hopefully, others here will test H9 against H8 > >In a simple test suite (LCTII) Hiarcs 9 came out 100 points stronger than H8. > Yes, I know. Test suites are great, but they are not always accurate in which program is stronger overall...I know, I've used them as well. > >>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? > I suggested both actually. Books are not relevant to strength, but to + or - positions, and large - positions are bad. The books should be solid, good and close to = IMHO. H8 Bareev did better than H9 on even books, that's all. Simple. >>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? Sarcasm...unwarranted....I never suggested any such thing. > >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? > I think you're reading into the position, rather than reading the position. If the comps. were available to me, I'd test mostly 40 in 2. Better? >J. Alex
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.