Author: Melvin S. Schwartz
Date: 13:25:58 06/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 12, 1999 at 12:34:02, Mark Young wrote: >On June 12, 1999 at 11:17:59, blass uri wrote: > >> >>On June 12, 1999 at 09:01:50, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: >> >>> >>>On June 12, 1999 at 06:08:06, blass uri wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>On June 12, 1999 at 00:27:49, Tania Devora wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Hi guys, this is the number 12 game under tournament controls. I am AMAZED, >>>>>Fritz5.32 has lost again !! >>>> >>>>I am not surprised because Hiarcs7.32 is better than >>>Fritz5.32 >>> >>>After just 10 games? Tania does not give Fritz the ampount of Hash-tables he >>>needs. This deficiency of HT could and probably is affecting his play. According >>>to published data and my conversatons with ChessBase, Fritz depends a lot on HT, >>>and his playing will be affected by a drastic reducton of what is recommended by >>>the formula in Fritz's manual. >> >>Hiarcs7.32 is also affected by the fact that it cannot use >>the nalimov tablebases because tania has not enough memory in the harddisk. >>It is possible that it drew some games that it could win with nalimov tablbases. >> >>I know that mark young believes that Hiarcs7 is better than Fritz5.32 >>and Hiarcs7.32 is probably 25% faster than Hiarcs7. >> >> >>>>Hiarcs needs to play against better opponents. >>> >>>Did you say better opponents than the #1 rated program by the SSDF? What is >>>better than Fritz? CM6000? >> >>I hope that Junior5.4 is better >>It is not commercial >>The comercial version of Junior is Junior5 >> >>I also have problem to trust the 28.5:11.5 of Hiarcs7 against Junior5 in the >>ssdf games when all the other tests of public games showed better results for >>Junior5. >>Hiarcs7.32(better than Hiarcs7) won against Junior5 in the games that were >>posted here only 11.5:8.5(the sides did not use the original opening book and it >>was something similiar to the nunn test) > >I will get my copy of Hiarcs7.32 monday, the first match I will play against >Hiarcs7.32 will be Junior 5. I also seen the Hiarcs7.32 and Junior 5 results, >and they seem a bit odd to me. Junior 5 I have found to be a solid program and >it tends to crush other programs more then itself getting crushed. The 28.5 to >11.5 results in SSDF is pretty wide for to top SSDF programs playing each other, >but anything can happen in a 40 game match.:) > >It will be interesting to see if SSDF match results can be reproduced. I have >enough memory(256mb), and disk space(10GB free). To max out both programs it >term of Hash, and Table base space for a match at 40/2hr. > Mark, if I remember correctly, you recently told me the SSDF's rating system was very sound. Has your position on that changed? If not, how would you explain Fritz 5.32 being number 1? Of course the difference between the top three is very small and relatively insignificant, but if you feel so strongly that Hiarcs 7 is better than Fritz 5.32, the SSDF testing will not back you up. Furthermore, their testing of Hiarcs 7 against Fritz 5.32 in 40 games reveals a score of Fritz 22 and Hiarcs 18. This is not an indication of Hiarcs supremacy over Fritz Mel > >> >>I also found that some programs on pentium90 performed better than 11.5:28.5 >>against Hiarcs7(pentium200). >> >>These games are not public so I cannot check if there is no mistake. >> >>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.