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 0.01 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.