Author: blass uri
Date: 12:38:29 06/27/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 27, 1999 at 13:55:53, Paul Richards wrote: <snipped> >Tania, when are you going to consider that perhaps your results DO lie? >This constant praise of Hiarcs is getting beyond ridiculous. Both the >SSDF and recent WCCC disagree with your glorious assessment of Hiarcs >vs. Fritz. It is HIGHLY LIKELY therefore that your tournaments done on >the same machine ARE COMPLETELY WORTHLESS for making any serious >determination. A serious comparison cannot be done running two programs >on the same machine at the same time. Please check the WCCC results and >SSDF list again and come back to a sense of reality. 1)The wccc results support the conjecture that on equal hardware the newest Hiarcs is better than the newest Fritz. Fritz had better hardware but the 4 out of 7 of Hiarcs is probably not worse than the 5 out of 7 of Fritz because Hiarcs played against better opponents. Hiarcs lost to Fritz and drew with Junior when Fritz won Junior but Hiarcs drew against shredder and won Ferret when Fritz lost against them. The results of wccc do not convince me that Fritz had better performance than Hiarcs and Fritz shoul;d have because it had better hardware. I agree that there were not enough games in wccc to come to clear conclusion. The results of WCCC also suggest nothing about Fritz5.32 because a new version of Fritz played and not Fritz5.32. 2)Hiarcs7.32 was not tested by the ssdf guys so the results of ssdf suggests nothing. I have also problems to trust the ssdf list results. reasons:I saw that Hiarcs7 or Hiarcs7.01(I do not know the version that was used) failed to win a simple endgame against Rebel9 (KBN vs K) and I know that Hiarcs can do the mate. Maybe the autoplayer lies. Most of the games of the ssdf list are not public so it is impossible to check if there are mistakes. Uri
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.