Author: Albert Silver
Date: 09:31:28 06/25/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 24, 1999 at 22:41:57, James T. Walker wrote:
>On June 24, 1999 at 22:28:26, Mark Young wrote:
>
>>On June 24, 1999 at 20:04:29, James T. Walker wrote:
>>
>>>Hello,
>>>Another way to prove it retains the hash tables is to turn off the permanent
>>>brain (Pondering). Then when playing a game, notice the depth of search and how
>>>long it takes to finda a move. When you play a move you will notice that Hiarcs
>>>does not start it's search a 1 ply but may start its search at 5/8 or something
>>>like that with 00:00:00 time showing taken for search. This indicates it is
>>>using information from a previous search stored in the hash tables. This is why
>>>Hiarcs has an advantage in engine/engine testing. The Pondering is turned off
>>>for both engines but since Hiarcs does not reset it's hash tables it has
>>>information left over to start the next search. But notice it's opponents
>>>(Fritz,Junior,Nimzo) have to start every search from ply 1 even when the
>>>predicted move is made.
>>>Jim Walker
>>
>>I have not seen this, but I have not looked for it in engine vs engine games to
>>see if it does retain hash from the previous search.
>>
>>To be honest I don't see this giving Hiarcs7 such a big advantage over the other
>>programs at longer time controls, not to the extent that I see from other
>>results that have been posted.
>************
>I think some people reported early results when Hiarcs was doing good. Only a
>long time and large amount of games can probe much about program strength. Of
>course Blitz test will tell a lot in a short time since I can run at least 100
>games a day. Did you see my Blitz results? I only ran 50 games in the
>engine/engine test and the results were Hiarcs came out stronger than in the
>auto232 test. As far as I can see it is the only explanation for Hiarcs beating
>Fritz in engine/engine testing.
>*************
>
>>
>>In my testing so far it has lost the blitz match I played at 10 secs. a move.
>>It did crush Fritz 5, but junior 5 is giving it all it can handle at 30 secs a
>>move, and 90 secs a move in the head to head match that I am playing now.
>*************
>You have probabley been told this before but it bears repeating. Playing games
>at "10 seconds/move" is dubious because different programs have different
>interpretations of this. Some take great latitude with this type time control
>since it is not "Law". There are no lost games on time for instance so why not
>take longer if needed? By contrast in my 200 game match between Hiarcs/Fritz,
>Fritz lost 6 games on time.
>*************
>
>>
>>And a quick note to Uri, Unless Hiarcs 7.32 is weaker then Hiarcs 7.01 or just
>>got "lucky" I don't see how from the games so far... why Hiarcs 7.01 crushed
>>Junior 5 in the SSDF testing.
>
>*************
>I have this question in the back of my mind all the time. I don't own Hiarcs 7
>so I can't test it. I would like to hear from someone who has both programs and
>has actually tested them not just against each other but each against identical
>competition.
>***********
>Jim Walker
>***********
I have both, and just ran the Louguet II. Hiarcs 7.32 was marginally faster in
almost every position. I have to go right now, but will post the results later
on here.
Albert Silver
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.