Author: Timothy J. Frohlick
Date: 09:34:26 05/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 29, 1999 at 10:09:02, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: > >I don't understand how you can seriously give credence to this match when you >are running Nimzo on superior hardware. The advantage of Nimzo on a Pentium 200 >MMX is not to be taken lightly. Regardless, Hiarcs 6 is outdated by Hiarcs 7 and >the Hash tables in Hiarcs 7 is much higher than what you listed for Hiarcs 6. My >main point is that when testing chess programs, you should test them on the SAME >type of computer. > >Regards, >Mel Mel, You are correct. It is not always possible to have two identical computers and the same time. To be "perfectly scientific" we should decrease the number of variables. Since we can't always do that we resort to statistics. You will note that Hiarcs will win a certain percentage of the time. Now if Hiarcs were winning half of the games it would be at least 80 points stronger than Nimzo because of the 2.3 fold increase in processor speed. So the point is not the winning of the games but rather the percentage won. I assure you that the person doing the testing does not have a desire to skew the results. Don't have hard feelings over these posts. Knowledge is a cumulative endeavor and tomorrows computers and programs will make mincemeat of all of todays machines. We have to keep testing in order to improve the things. Tim Frohlick
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.