Author: stuart taylor
Date: 02:12:39 01/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2004 at 21:18:38, Bob Durrett wrote: >On January 08, 2004 at 21:14:23, stuart taylor wrote: > >>On January 08, 2004 at 18:34:40, Stephen Ham wrote: >> >>>On January 08, 2004 at 17:16:17, Bob Durrett wrote: >>> >>>>HIARCS X plays as “sinferno” at ICC on an AMD Athlon XP 2400+ @ 2.5GHz computer. >>>>It holds the "official" ICC Blitz Record at 3604 and has the fewest losses and >>>>better overall records versus strong titled players than any other computer on >>>>ICC. It has only lost five games to two titled players but has played a large >>>>number of GMs, IMs and FMs. It is currently the top engine at ICC using >>>>Standard time limits. >>>> >>>>Why is that? Why is it better than all the other chess engines no matter what >>>>the hardware? Is SSDF missing something here? Is there a disconnect here? >>>> >>>>Bob D. >>> >>>Hi Bob, >>> >>>That's a great question, to which I'd like to learn the answer too. I don't know >>>anything about the ICC; I've never been there. But a few nights ago I thought >>>that it might be fun to have a 5' match (10-games) against Shredder 7.04. >>> >>>Although I'm bored stiff by 5' computer games, I saw value in this one since I'd >>>completely overhauled Shredder's opening book to only play the lines that I play >>>in Correspondence Chess. Ordinarily, at slow time controls, Shredder virtually >>>ALWAYS wins. So I naturally feel smug about my opening book. ;-) Therefore I >>>thought it would be fun to finally see what my book and Shredder would do to >>>Hiarcs 9 at 5'. After all, Shredder 8 defeated the latest Fritz at Blitz in >>>Graz. >>> >>>To my shock and horror, Hiarcs 9 won convincingly (I don't recall the score but >>>it was probably +3). So I examined the games and saw that Hiarcs and it's goofy >>>opening book actually played superior tactics than Shredder. So I repeated the >>>experiment. This time the score was something like +2, favoring Hiarcs 9. Same >>>story on game quality. So I prepared Shredder's opening book for some of the >>>offbeat stuff that Hiarcs plays (Hiarcs repeats the same lines it has success >>>with a great deal), and the next result over another 10-game match was 5-5. >>> >>>Conclusion: Hiarcs' 5' tactical skills seem superior to Shredder's. Also, while >>>Hiarcs' opening book seems quirky (and often downright bad), Shredder seems to >>>need more time to refute the stuff that Hiarcs plays. In my latest long >>>time-control match and tournament, Shredder was dominant. >>> >>>If I get time, I'll try a long time-control match and switch opening books. I >>>have a theory that Hiarcs 9 would perform better if it weren't handicapped by >>>its opening book. Oddly enough, this quirky book just may be an asset at short >>>time controls in that it often removes the other engine from its book, saving >>>Hiarcs time on the clock. Clearly this isn't much of a factor at longer >>>time-controls where quality of moves played prevails. >>> >>>Well, that's my 2-cents worth. >>> >>>All the best, >>> >>>Stephen >> >>Might it be possible that the next Hiarcs could be a breakthrough in computer >>chess level, from what you can guess (based on your understanding)? I'm talking >>about long timings too. >>Or is it that Shredder etc. is the REAL monster when given time? (and Hiarcs >>might just be optimized for blitz, but improves evaluation very slowly after >>more time, by which time Shredder catches up and overtakes)? >>S.Taylor > >HIARCS X has the highest rating at ICC at Standard Time controls. > >Bob D. Wow!
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.