Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:23:19 06/27/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 27, 1999 at 15:11:30, Mark Young wrote: >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. Crafty doesn't work well with ponder=off. An older version of Rebel would really screw up as it only did its time calculation while in ponder mode.. Ed and I ran into several such problems when we did that single "NPS game" a year or two ago... In any case it definitely screws my time allocation up. And I'll bet other programs play weaker than normal because none of us do a lot of testing with no pondering, to make sure everything is working well. I don't test that way because I never play games that way...
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.