Author: James Robertson
Date: 17:30:25 06/26/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 1999 at 17:38:38, Mark Young wrote: >On June 26, 1999 at 17:11:19, James Robertson wrote: > >>On June 26, 1999 at 14:15:11, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>If we are going to make the conclusion here in CCC, as goes Hiarcs6 in this >>>match so goes all chess programs. I would like to make a suggestion. Don't let >>>Hiarcs 6 repersent the other chess programs in this match. Hiarcs 6 as I have >>>posted in the past is one of the worst programs at faster time controls. >> >>Faster time controls...??? I really can't help but laugh. Weren't we just a >>little while ago saying there isn't much difference between G/60 and 40/2? > >No. Actually, it did come up when Polgar lost to Fritz at what we thought was G/60. But, you probably didn't say anything about it, and I shouldn't attribute motives to you with out checking; I'm sorry for doing so. The sarcastic tone of my last post was not called for. Aside from that though, it is unusual to hear someone say that a program is weaker against humans at shorter time controls. What I mean is, if Hiarcs is one of the worst at G/60 (what you actually said), and it rates very high in the SSDF at 40/2, then it is obviously to the humans advantage to play it at a shorter time control. This is backwards from what is usually believed.... > > It >>seems unlikely that doubling the time control will raise Hiarcs' rating 300-500 >>points. > >Are you saying Hiarcs 6 is not even of master strenght. I look at programs as >individuals. And like any individual they play at different strenghts at >different time controls. That is why I test programs at many time controls >ranging for blitz to standard time controls. Because I test this way I know that >hiarcs 6 at this time controls is very weak at this time control against this >type of tactic play. There are much better programs that can deal with this type >of play at this time controls on halls slower computer. I see your point, but I just cannot believe that a program would be tactically inept to this kind of play "at this time control", and if you double the time control, giving it approx. .2 - .5 extra plies it would be tactically able to handle this. > >> >>>It is >>>very slow in seeing danger and will ofter make itself look dumb. >> >>I do agree there.... but Fritz on a P400 couldn't see the danger either, so I >>don't think Hiarcs is the exception in not seeing the danger. > >Don't know about Fritz, but Hiarcs 7.32 would have done better, as seen for the >move it would have played. But is it because it sees the tactics or just the positional dangers? I will wager Hiarcs 7.32's score will not drop to -4 or -9 after Nxc2 (I presume that is the move you are talking about?). > >> >>> >>>On the computer system that Hall is running, I would suggest using Chess Genius >>>5. Genius 5 is one of the best if not the best program playing humans at this >>>time control, and the program is of the same generation as Hiarcs 6. >> >>Do you really think Chess Genius is 300-500 points stronger than Hiarcs against >>Humans? > >Yes, if you think that best programs are only rated 2000 because of Hiarcs 6 >weakness. > >> >>> >>>As I have posted in the past I played a match some time ago with GM A Ivanov. I >>>used genius 5 running on a Cyrix P 166. The time control for the match was 30 >>>mins plus 30 secs a move. Genius 5 won with ease and GM A Ivanov quit the match. >> >>I did not hear about this; could you post the games, date, and other >>information? >> >>Also, this is unrelated to the post, but weren't you the one who set up the >>Yermo - Hiarcs match? I will have to go back through the archives, as my memory >>is really failing me here.... :( > >No it was not me, When I play a match with a GM I wait until the games have >started before saying anything. My mistake, sorry. I got confused. :( James > >> >>James
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.