Author: Paul Richards
Date: 12:14:26 06/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 1999 at 04:16:36, Brett Clark wrote: >On June 12, 1999 at 16:35:29, Paul Richards wrote: > >>Uh, Tania I think Hiarcs is probably a wonderful program, but you seem to >>be SLIGHTLY biased in the results that you are looking for. ;) Didn't >>someone just post a game where Crafty 16.10 beat Hiarcs 7.32? Since >>Crafty was playing black to boot, I therefore claim that it is superior >>to Hiarcs. ;) It takes a lot of games played under good conditions to >>produce a reasonably reliable result. > >Engine vs. engine matches on the same machine are fun to observe, but you >shouldn't read too much into the results. The only true test of the strength of >the programs is on separate, equal machines, with optimum hash table >configuration. This allows for thinking on the opponent's time, as well as time >management. I suspect that Fritz 5.32 and Hiarcs 5.32 will be within a few ELO >points of each other when all is said and done. I agree completely, only in a slightly more sarcastic manner. ;) Tania's enthusiasm is nice, but I also doubt that there is a great difference in strength between Hiarcs and Fritz. I don't trust these engine-engine tests on the same machine.
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.