Author: Micheal Cummings
Date: 01:22:59 05/30/99
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 Regardless, Hiarcs 6 is outdated by Hiarcs 7 and 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 must be new here, this is an old topic. Simply put when the calculations are done. Hiarcs6 has played many games, and they know how strong it is on a P90. So just because Nimzo99 is beating it easily, say for i9nstance 20:5 for Nimzo99 over Hiarcs6, when the calulations are done, it might end up hurting Nimzo99, cause it should have beaten it say 20:2 to actually gain any points improvements. So it may actually lose points beating the program 20:5. You have a point, but in the end it all works out pretty close. Kasparov taking on a player ranked around 2000 elo, will not improve his ranking say if he beats someone around 2700, then it will. So just because it is on slower hardware, and the other is killing it, does not mean that the winning program is going to get great points improvement. Regards Micheal
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.