Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: How really strong is ChessMaster 6000?

Author: John R. Menke, Sr.

Date: 04:09:24 07/04/99

Go up one level in this thread


On July 04, 1999 at 06:23:08, walter irvin wrote:

>On July 03, 1999 at 23:17:20, leonid wrote:
>
>>How really strong is ChessMaster 6000? I have seen its score on the recent
>>competition and it is magnificent. Just a competition accident or what?
>>Also, somebody can say me how many positions per second can see Hiarcs?
>>Or his last version, that is now a Champion, or on some previous
>>versions. The most interesting for me will be the numbers that Hiarcs
>>demonstrate when it plays by "brute force" and when all pieces are still on
>>the board.
>>
>>Thanks!
>>Leonid.
>
>well chessmaster 6000 is extremly strong the only program i got that has beat
>crafty consitantly . whats very strange is that it seems like it is only
>searching about 15000 nps to crafty's 85000 or better . as for hiarcs i cant say
>till wed. thats when my hiarcs 7.32 will arrive .


I'm also curious how the "positions per second" in Chessmaster 6000 and the
"nodes per second" in Hiarcs 7.32 compare.  Initially I thought they were the
same, just different nomenclature.  But now I wonder...  I plan to do some
comparison tests when I can find the time.  For example I want to use a stop
watch (not trust the computer displays) to see how long each of them take to
calculate the solution to a known test problem, and see how that compares with
the "positions per second" and "nodes per second" values.  I also want to do the
same with a practical playing position to compare how long they take to "Brute
Force" (completely) calculate to a certain ply depth.  I have some initial
impressions, but they could be wrong, so I won't speculate in advance about the
results.  If anybody has done those kinds of tests, I would be very interested
in the results, so please post them!  I guess you could fairly say that I am a
100% hardhead, i.e. I don't believe ANYTHING until it is proved for a
fact...usually requiring a simple test of some kind.
--JRM




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.