Author: Melvin S. Schwartz
Date: 08:03:24 06/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 12, 1999 at 17:28:58, Mark Young wrote: >On June 12, 1999 at 16:25:58, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: > >> >>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. > >I see you are confused again, I said the rating method they are using is sound. >It does not mean that they do not make mistakes in plugging in the data or >playing the games. That is why many of us look at the SSDF games here in CCC, >and if something strange is found, see if the game or results can be reproduced. > Hello Mark, I kind of think the reply I received from Brett is more meaningful than yours. First you say it's sound than you say it's not perfect. Well...I guess we have different meanings of what sound is! > Has your position on that changed? If not, how would you explain >>Fritz 5.32 being number 1? > >My position has not changed, but it help if the person I am talking to has a >common frame of reference in how ratings systems work and computer chess in >general. You sir do not. > Mark, You have a penchant for setting the wrong tone with me in debating an issue. You may think you are correct but I am entitled to disagree without your degrading remarks, If you feel I am so unintelligent about ratings and computer chess etc,. then I wish you would not reply to any of my posts. I don't need your kind of reples - go teach someone else! >> >>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 > >Again you show your lack of knowledge about computer chess. I test programs on > Mark, My lack of knowledge...hmmm. Oh well, so much for the meaning of the SSDF's results. PII 400 or faster hardware. Just because Fritz 5.32 is the best program on P200 >hardware, this does not mean Fritz 5.32 is also #1 on PII 400 hardware. My >results do not conflict or disagree with SSDF's results. I test under different >hardware conditions then SSDF. My testing shows, that Hiarcs7 is stronger then >Fritz 5.32 on PII 400 hardware. I do not "FEEL" this, my data shows this. > >So you don't think I am the only one who finds Hiarcs7 is stronger then Fritz >5.32 I show you the SSR list. > >SELECTIVE SEARCH RATINGS >1. 253 2629 Hiarcs 7.1 - still top, beat Fritz532 by 8-4, Rebel 10 by 7.5-4.5, >Genius5 by 6.5-5.5 and drew 6-6 with Nimzo98 in latest results from my Magazine >readers. >2. 251 2610 Fritz 532 >3. 250 2602 ChessMaster 6000 - may not stay so high - most results in are >against weak opposition >4. 248 2590 Nimzo 99a - the 'a' upgrade finally moves Nimzo 99 above Nimzo 98! >5. 248 2588 Fritz 516 >6. 248 2585 Nimzo 98 >7. 247 2580 Junior 5 - the massive loss to Hiarcs7 in Sweden has hurt J5 - I >think it's better than this >8. 246 2571 Rebel 10 >9. 246 2571 Hiarcs 6 >10. 244 2556 Rebel 9 >11. 244 2551 Shredder 3 >12. 243 2547 MChess Pro 7 >13. 242 2539 Genius 5 >14. 242 2538 MChess Pro 8 - some poor results in Sweden, especially the crushing >defeat by Fritz 5.32, have hurt MCP8 >15. 241 2534 Shredder2 >16. 238 2508 Gandalf3 >17. 236 2492 Junior4.6 >18. 235 2483 Kallisto2 >19. 224 2398 CS-Tal DOS > Mark, The Selective Search rating list, I believe, is run by Eric Hallsworth who is the one responsible for the opening book in Hiarcs. It is just a little awkward that he is running that site and perhaps doing the testing. Anyway, you didn't state the time controls for that match between Hiarcs and Fritz. I have seen a 10 game match between Hiarcs 7 and Fritz 5.32 with a score of 6-4 in favor of Fritz; furthermore, I have also seen a match between Hiarcs 7 and MCP8 at 40/2 with the score 6.5 - 3.5 in favor of MCP8. So what does it all mean - probably nothing. By the way, I am not a Fritz 5.32 fanatic! I have both programs and only respond as I see fit. I DO NOT SAY FRITZ IS BETTER THAN HIARCS OR THAT HIARCS IS BETTER THAN FRITZ. I simply do not have the answer. I believe that much more testing be done before we come to any conclusion - I am not interested in mere speculation as being the foundation for a disagreement. Regards, 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.