Author: blass uri
Date: 17:24:59 06/07/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 07, 1999 at 19:49:17, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: > >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? I know that James walker did a match between Junior5 and Fritz5.32 (90 minutes per 40 moves) and the result was 6:6 I know that Junior5 lost 28.5:11.5 against Hiarcs7 but the problem is that the games are not public. Junior5 did better results in public games against Hiarcs7. I know that it won Hiarcs7 6:4 in enrique games(40 minutes per 40 moves on a fast pentium) I also read that Hiarcs7.32 had problems against Junior5 in the test games and I did not read about results like 28.5:11.5 Junior5 earns more speed from the fast computers relative to Fritz5.32 or Hiarcs7 Here are the numbers: AMD K6-2 450 vs P200MMX Speed improvement: Fritz3 130% Genius2 119% Gandalf3 84% McP6 117% Rebel8 148% Hiarcs7.01 137%=2.37 times faster Fritz5.32 114%=2.14 times faster Junior5 142%=2.42 times faster Shreddr3 106% Nimzo98 147% 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.