Author: Melvin S. Schwartz
Date: 14:52:38 05/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 29, 1999 at 15:35:42, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba 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 Regardless, Hiarcs 6 is outdated by Hiarcs 7 and 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 > > For SSDF, Hiarcs 6 running on a P90 is a known entry with an established >rating, and it is used to measure the strength of newer entries (like Nimzo 99 >on an P200). > Testing Hiarcs 6 on a P200 would introduce a new entry with unknown rating, >which would require hundreds of test games. And the SSDF does not have enough >resources to do that. >José. Hi Jose Just because the SSDF is doing that with Hiarcs 6 doesn't mean I have to agree with it. There's a chess site named Shep's where computer tournaments are held at 40/2 and ALL computers are playing against each other on the SAME hardware. I consider that method to be far superior to what you're talking about - which to me means you are leaving a lot to mere conjecture. I am most interested in obtaining information based on testing that will come as close to reality as possible. This of course is my opinion. By the way, the last time I looked at the SSDF rating list, it appeared that all computers were tested against each other on the same hardware - perhaps I am wrong about that. However, given the testing you describe versus Shep's testing, I would not hesitate to say that Shep's results are more meaningful. Regards, mel
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.