Author: Laurence Chen
Date: 10:27:50 06/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 22, 1999 at 10:50:56, James T. Walker wrote: >Hello, >I am very disappointed in the results I'm getting with Hiarcs 7.32. If someone >has a suggestion as to what is wrong or what I might be doing wrong please feel >free to straighten me out. I purchased Hiarcs 7.32 in hopes it would be my >"replacement" program for Fritz 5.32. So far the results are disappointing. > >Blitz(game/5 min): >Fritz 5.32 106.5 >Hiarcs 7.32 93.5 > >Junior 5.0 100.5 >Hiarcs 7.32 99.5 > >I have also played 40 games at game/15. Fritz 5.32 is leading Hiarcs 7.32 by a >score of 27-13. I assumed since Hiarcs was supposed to be as good/better than >Fritz at 40/2hrs that as the time control got longer Hiarcs would get better so >the g/15 score is very disappointing! > >Games were played on a PII 333 vs a K6-2-400. After 100 games the programs >swapped computers and played the 2nd hundred games. All games were played >using auto232. I reviewed the games when finished and found some games where >Fritz 5.32 lost on time so I corrected the score to reflect that. I found no >games where Hiarcs 7.32 lost on time. I experimented some with hash tables for >Hiarcs 7.32 but can see no noticeable difference in performance between >8Meg,16Meg at these time controls. Hiarcs has all 3/4 man tablebases and 17 of >the 5 man tablebases. Fritz 5.32 is using the F5.ctg opening book and Hiarcs >has it's own book on HD. Also the TB's are on HD. >Jim Walker Hi Jim, I feel the same about Hiarcs 7.32. It doesn't seem to be stronger than Fritz 5.32, and it sometimes play very stupid in the endgame, in closed positions and some half-closed positions, it tends to shift wood, it has no clue of what to do. I'm as disappointed as you are. Perhaps I should have got Shredder instead. Laurence
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.