Author: Randolph S. Baker
Date: 05:29:54 11/14/97
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 1997 at 18:09:38, Randolph S. Baker wrote: >On November 13, 1997 at 11:56:39, Chris Whittington wrote: > >(deletia) > >>>>If increasing computer hardware speed is tipping the knowledge/speed >>>>battle in favour of knowledge (which seems to be the prevailing >>>>doctrine), then one could expect the following effects: >>>> >>>>If a clever program played a quick one at low time controls (e.g. game >>>>in 5), the quick ones should win. >>>> >>>>At medium time controls (e.g. tournament chess times), it should be >>>>getting more even. >>>> >>>>At long time controls, the clever programs should be dominant. >>>> >>>I observed a very similar pattern in playing Fritz5 versus the Hiarcs6 >>>engine, with 1 additional discrepancy which also makes sense: at very >>>short (relatively) time controls, search wins over knowledge because the >>>knowledge programs miss tactics. (My testing was done on a P90, so some >>>appropriate scale applied to the time controls compared with a P233 >>>would also account for it). >>> >>>In very fast games (e.g. 4'+2'' or 5' fixed), Fritz5 wins handily. At >>>modest blitz speeds (5'+12'') Hiarcs6 was even or slightly better. At >>>somewhat longer time controls (25' fixed), Fritz5 was slightly better. I >>>haven't run many tournament time matches, but I have 20 game Nunn match >>>at 40/2 in progress. Results for first 6 games are Fritz5 +3-2=1, (too >>>close to call.) >>> >> >>Unfortunately, testing with hiarcs and fritz like this does prove much. >>the alternative explanation for the results swing is that at longer time >>controls fritz eats hash table, runs out of ram and stalls. Hiarcs only >>experiences this phenomenon later due to its lower node rate. >> >>To account for hash effects, you'ld need to run the experiment with >>several different hash sizes, including soem where both prgs had >>seriously large amounts of hash ram. You should then see the fritz >>results improve with more hash ram at long time controls. >> >>You may also then be able to pick out of the mass of figures soem data >>to show hiarcs getter better with longer time controls and 'normalised' >>hash figures ..... >> >>Chris Whittington > >This is certainly a valid point. I did run the tests on a 64MB machine, >so each engine had at least 16MB of hash. While hardly an optimal >configuration, Fritz certainly wasn't crippled by lack of memory in this >case. And I did play many games (100's). The Nunn match is being run on >a P233 instead of P90 (still 64MB), so hash effects are more likely to >show up there. > One additional piece of info here: I have Fritz5 have each engine record the evaluation at each move in the game. In situations where Hiarcs6 wins over Fritz5, Fritz5 has still outsearched it by 2-3 plies, extensions not included. The games tend to be interesting to look at after the fact. Stunning tactical shots by Fritz5, slow positional improvements leading to wins by Hiarcs6. Randy
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.