Author: Bertil Eklund
Date: 03:06:34 06/08/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 07, 1999 at 23:37:07, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: > >On June 07, 1999 at 20:24:59, blass uri wrote: > >> >>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% > >I know that at 40/2 with a 200MHz processor, Fritz needs 72 megs of RAM. At 40/2 >with a 400 MHz processor, Fritz needs 144 megs of RAM. Without knowing more >details from your posting above, it is impossible for me to come to a valid >conclusion. I don't know if Junior uses Hash Tables in the same way Fritz does, >but I do know Hiarcs does not. If you could provide the time control used for >the above test and Fritz's allocated Hash Table usage, then I could evaluate the >above with more authenticity. Unless of course, the time control and Hash Table >total are both irrelevant? > >Mel> >>Uri Hallo! All tests is done with the same hash-table size. Typically a doubling of the hash-size gives around 7-8% extra speed. The only exception I know is Fritz. Fritz5 +20-90%. This according to several tests I have done on tournament level 3-10 min/move. Regards Bertil SSDF
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.