Author: Melvin S. Schwartz
Date: 11:05:29 05/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 29, 1999 at 11:16:22, Dave Gomboc wrote: >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 Regardless, Hiarcs 6 is outdated by Hiarcs 7 and 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 > >No, he shouldn't. He should report the speed of the processor and the version >of the software, just as he has. If you support this kind of testing, good luck on trying to get meaningful evaluations. I think you're getting into more of a hypothetical circumstance here with uneven testing. > >"Hiarcs 6, P90", "Hiarcs 7, P200MMX", and "Hiarcs 7, K2-450" are all different >entities that can be expected to have significantly different ratings. That a >newer hardware/software combination exists does not make it invalid or even >useless to assess the strength of an older one. I believe Nimzo 99 is a newer program than Hiarcs 6. If that is the case, it would futher support uneven testing. How many people would be interested in how Hiarcs 6 does against..as opposed to Hiarcs 7 against...?. Furthermore, who is still selling Hiarcs 6??? I'm not saying there is absolutely no purpose in testing outdated software, but rather time and testing could be put to better use. Mel> >Dave
This page took 0.01 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.