Author: Melvin S. Schwartz
Date: 17:50:59 05/31/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 31, 1999 at 20:09:57, Dann Corbit wrote: >On May 31, 1999 at 19:33:28, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: >[snip] >>Hello Dr. Hyatt! >> >>Perhaps there is some confusion on what I'm looking for. First, I am not >>interested in comparing dedicated computers. I am interseted in comparing >>software programs - commercial software programs like Hiarcs, Fritz,Rebel, etc. >>I've found at Shep's site he runs tournaments with programs such as listed >>above, on equal hardware and at various time controls. I also personally >>believe, and this may be just my opinion of all the members here, that comparing >>programs on equal hardware is of the utmost importance if one wishes to know >>which program deserves the consideration as being the best. >Best in what sense? Seems I've caused quite a stir with my opinion. I am really tired of it for I have so many other things to do and responding to this over and over has become a real bore. However, I will address your concerns as best I can. > >>If a program wins a >>tournament at 40/2 - that's the only time control I'm interested in - then I >>believe that program at that time should have the honor of being called the >>best. >Is this your definition of best? What about at correspondence chess rates, >which requires even stronger ability? I consider 40/2 the ultimate way by which to judge the merit of a program because that is the time control used in championship matches. When Kasparov or Karpov play for the title they are playing at 40/2.> >>As for ratings, I also believe testing programs on equal hardware is the >>optimum way to achieve the most accurate results. >What is the mathematical basis for theis claim? It has been my experience with other people having the same software that with faster pc's you will get better results from a program. And that means the program will play better. It is printed in the manual for Hiarcs 7 in reference to improving Hiarcs strength: "Alternatively, you can purchase a faster PC!" It is also stated in the manual for Fritz 5.32 that the speed of the software the program is running on has a great influence on the playing strength of Fritz. It also states "Obviously a 200 MHz Pentium is going to give you a much better performance than one running at 133 MHZ. There are other factors as well, but as you can see, the hardware a program is running on is very important. And that is why I criticized SSDF for running Hiarcs 6 on a P90 against Nimzo 98 on a P200. Of course they claim that they are able to compensate for the different speed and come up with accurate calculations; however, I am not totally convinced of that. I still feel they're dealing in a hypothehtical situation. At Shep's site there are tournaments held where all programs are run against each other on the same hardware. That I believe is the absolute correct way to evaluate programs. >>I'm glad you responded even though we may disagree on some or all of the above. >>I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere apologies at naming >>you the author of a quote I have used. I guess you can call it a major >>"BLUNDER". Once again, please accept my apology for making that terrible >>mistake. >Everybody makes mistakes. Owning up to them and moving on is the mark of a true >lady or gentleman. Thank you!
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.