Author: Mark Young
Date: 12:11:30 06/27/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 27, 1999 at 14:33:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 27, 1999 at 06:22:36, Terry Ripple wrote: > >>On June 27, 1999 at 06:08:25, Brett Clark wrote: >> >>>On June 27, 1999 at 01:42:40, Tania Devora wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Hi guys, I have finsihed my first twenty games between the super strong >>>>Hiarcs7.32 and Fritz5.32 under tournaments controls, ( 2 hours and a half for 40 >>>>moves, 1 hour for 20 moves, and all the moves for 30 minutes) . >>>> >>>>Fritz5.32 disapointed me totally, look the games, they all have good openings, >>>>and more than once Fritz lost in winning positions. Look carefuly at the games. >>>> >>>>Please look carefuly the game number 20, is one of the most beautiful game than >>>>i ever seen. Remember me the great JOSE RAUL CAPABLANCA. >>>> >>>>The results dont lie, Hiarcs7.32 is superior. My machine is k6-2 333 mhz with >>>>128 ram, 44 mb for each one. 150 minutes for 40 moves. >>>> >>> >>>It should come as no surprise that Hiarcs would win most of the games in these >>>engine vs. engine matches. First of all, at tournament time controls on your >>>machine, Fritz 5.32 would require 120 MB of RAM to function at full strength. >>>Moreover, Hiarcs retains its hash tables between moves in the engine vs. engine >>>matches, whereas Fritz starts from scratch on every move. This in essence gives >>>Hiarcs the equivalent of "pondering". >>> >>>I've noticed that in matches played on separate machines, these programs appear >>>to be fairly even, but only time will tell. >>------ >>Hi Brett, >> Is there a way to get around this "Pondering" idea other than to have to play >>matches with two seperate CPU`S? >>----- >>Terry > > >Nope. And even the fact that you disable pondering on both programs doesn't >make this a fair contest, because one program might do things while pondering >that it doesn't do otherwise. Or it might screw up time allocation. Or >whatever.. > >It's pretty pointless to use one machine and then post results here... I would agree, but having played on two machines, and one machine, with autoplayer and by hand. I get the same results in regard to each other with an acceptable +/- for the amount of games I may have played. If there is a program that plays only killer chess on just one computer inside chessbase I have not seen it. I doubt if Hiarcs 7.32 is like this, having tested Hiarcs 7.01 on two computers. My results with Hiarcs 7.32 and Junior 5 after just 20 games are not that much out of line with what SSDF got playing on two computers with Hiarcs 7.01 and Junior 5. A big win for Hiarcs in both cases, but SSDF results with two computers and 40 games was a bit bigger I think. I do agree playing two windows chess programs on one computer can be very bad and pointless. In this case I alway use two computers. I am always open to data, can you give me an example that will show this in programs running in chessbase from one computer vs two computes results.
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.