Author: Melvin S. Schwartz
Date: 16:49:17 06/07/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 07, 1999 at 12:37:07, blass uri wrote: > >On June 07, 1999 at 11:16:13, Shep wrote: > >>On June 07, 1999 at 10:15:55, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: >> >>>Since Hiarcs 7.32 and Fritz 5.32 are condidered to be two of the best three >>>prgrams available, if not the two best, wouldn't it be inteesting to run Hiarcs >>>in Fritz, or Fritz in Hiarcs, and have Fritz play tactical and Hiarcs play >>>positional positions? Of course the question then becomes, would the program >>>accurately know when to switch? Anybody have thoughts on this? >> >>Unfortunately, it is not very clear how Fritz differentiates between these >>types. I noticed that, running the Louguet suite, even most of the POS subsuite >>is considered "Tactical" by Fritz (IIRC only 5/14 are "positional" for Fritz). >> >>I have played some games with T:Fritz P/E:Junior (I called this combination >>"ClaireChess" on SCCS) and noticed that either almost the whole game was played >>by one engine alone or there was exactly one point where Fritz switched from one >>engine to the other and never switched back again. >> >>I think Chessbase will sooner or later have to make this function modular and >>programmable because it is still very difficult to decided which positions are >>tactical and which aren't. > >There is a simple solution. >look for the first 5 options for 1% of your time. >If the difference between the best move and the 5th best move is more than a >pawn then the position is tactical otherwise it is positional. > >You can change the numbers but the idea is clear. > >This is of course not a perfect solution but does someone has a better idea? > > >I do not know if Fritz5.32 is better in tactical positions. Whether they are right or wrong, I'll present my sources for saying Fritz is better in tactical positions. Mr. Giehring at Chessbase sent me a message, which I have saved, stating Fritz 5.32 is slightly better in tactical positions than Hiarcs 7.32. Also, in a review by Claudio Bollini, which can be read at this site, he shows a diagram based on a particular test done to evaluate different programs that I believe indicates Fritz to be better at tactics. >I read that Hiarcs7 is a good solver so it is good at tactics and I know about >ssdf games that Fritz5.32 won Hiarcs7 because of better endgame play and not >because of tactics. This is very surprising in light of the review of Hiarcs 7 where in the "endgame hits test" Hiarcs was excellent along with MC8. I believe he rated those two as tops in endgame play according to the "hits"test. >Does someone has a proof that Fritz is better than Hiarcs7 or Junior in >practical tactical positions? I believe you think quite highly of Junior. For that reason I am baffled by Junior's poor showing in SSDF testing. How do you compare Junior 5 against Hiarcs 7 and Fritz 5.32 in overall playing strength, and by what criteria do you base your conclusion? >>Another problem if you change the engine often is that Hiarcs cannot use the >fact that it does not clear the hash tables if it is not going to play the next >move. Well, I guess that rules out my idea of combining the two engines regardless of who is better at tactics. Mel> >Uri
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.