Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:31:33 10/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2000 at 13:59:55, Aaron Tay wrote: >On October 09, 2000 at 13:38:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 09, 2000 at 12:46:27, Joshua Lee wrote: >> >>>Since you can't compare them by playing each other what about comparing >>>printouts? Are there any printouts that have NPS Depth line etc. If i had this i >>>would attempt. I did look at a game against Chiptest where CB had 14 Ne6 but >>>played Na4<-- not the losing move but not as good as Ne6 CB get's a queen Vs 3 >>>minor pieces which is not easy but it would be alot better than the situation >>>before if CB could keep his queen on and exchange rooks it makes it easier. As >>>Black's only chances would be to obtain a new queen not likely. So the outcome >>>is probably a draw but this is just my guess. To see this move for Crafty would >>>be over 14Ply on my 800Mhz Athlon just to give you some idea. If you can >>>elaborate on CB's earlier versions and how they played maybe this will answer my >>>questions and help you to improve on crafty. >>> >>> >>>Sometimes it's all about asking the right question. >>> >>>thank you >> >> >>Actually I did this a couple of years ago and posted the results in r.g.c.c I >>believe. I took a couple of the world championship 1986 games (the wc won by >>CB for the second time in a row) and had Crafty 'annotate' the games. It was >>uncanny how they agreed tactically. Of course, 1986 CB was doing maybe 100-200K >>nodes per second max, so crafty had a big edge in speed. But it found _zero_ >>tactical mistakes by CB. >> >>I analyzed the games partly in a discussion with Chris Whittington where he >>was into the usual mode of criticizing Cray Blitz for any reason. He picked on >>one particular move as looking foolish. Someone else pointed out that CSTal >>played the _same_ move, as it was tactically forced to avoid losing a pawn, >>but of course that didn't make any difference. I became interested in how >>Crafty would compare. I gave crafty more time than CB had, using faster >>hardware than CB had (1986 hardware for CB, remember), and it couldn't find >>any move it would label as a mistake or oversight. >> >>CB was tactically very strong. In most positional cases the two programs were >>in agreement as well, which is not surprising since I wrote both. >> >>The main advantage CB might have had back then was far faster hardware than >>anything I might run Crafty on in 1986. Of course Crafty would have run on a >>Cray back then, but it would have been far slower as Crafty is not vectorized >>while CB was. I suspect there is not a lot of difference in the two programs >>today. CB might have a tactical edge due to singular extensions and a bit of >>selectiveness near the leaf positions, while crafty probably has more >positional (particularly endgame) knowledge (excepting king safety where CB >was clearly better). > >Sorry to interrupt, but does that mean that as of today you wouldn't bet on >Crafty running on your current hardware to beat CB (the lastest/last version)? > >So when do you anticipate will Crafty overtake CB? In 5 years time, when everone >is using better hardware? You will have to rephrase your question a bit. But to help, if you meant "can crafty on the quad xeon play with Cray Blitz on the T90?" the answer is _NO_. CB on the T90 runs at around 7M nodes per second, about 7X faster than the quad xeon. I wouldn't want to play such a handicap match. On the other hand, if you mean "Can Crafty, on the best box you can get today play with CB on the T90?" the answer is yes. I have some data from Tim Mann's 21264a machine which is about as fast as my quad xeon, but using a single cpu at 667 mhz. A 16 cpu machine would be faster than Cray Blitz. And I would expect it to win more than it would lose, although I think it would be pretty close.
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.