Author: stuart taylor
Date: 02:45:48 11/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 20, 2000 at 02:53:21, Christophe Theron wrote: >On November 19, 2000 at 21:46:07, stuart taylor wrote: > >>On November 19, 2000 at 12:13:07, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On November 19, 2000 at 10:14:46, stuart taylor wrote: >>> >>>>On November 18, 2000 at 20:00:14, Aloisio Ponti Lopes wrote: >>>> >>>>>Thüringen Mohlsdorf 2000 >>>>> >>>>>Junior 6.0 Athlon 1000 +1 -1 +1 +0 -1 1 5.0/6 >>>>>Deep Fritz 2x P3-866 -½ +1 +1 -1 +½ r 4.5/6 >>>>>Nimzo 7.32 Athlon 1000 -½ +1 -0 +1 -1 3.5/6 >>>>>Gambit Tiger 1.0 Athlon 500 -1 +0 -1 +½ -½ 3.5/6 >>>>>Shredder 4.0 Athlon 800 -1 +1 -0 +0 -1 3.5/6 >>>>>Chess Tiger 13.0 P3-840 +½ -0 +1 -1 +0 3.0/6 >>>>>Hiarcs 7.01 P3-500 -½ +1 -½ -½ +0 3.0/6 >>>>>Goliath Light 2.0ß Athlon 650 +½ -0 +0 -1 +1 3.0/6 >>>>>Rebel Century - Athlon 1000 -0 +0 -1 +1 -½ 3.0/6 >>>>>Zarkov 5.01 Athlon 1000 +½ -0 -½ +1 +0 2.5/6 >>>>>Hiarcs 7.32 Athlon 1100 +0 -½ +½ -0 +1 2.5/6 >>>>>Gandalf 4.32f Athlon 1000 +0 -1 +½ -0 -0 2.0/6 >>>>>Chigorin's Way Cel. 500 -0 +½ -0 +0 +½ 1.0/6 >>>>>Chessmaster 6000 P2-400 +1 -0 +0 -0 -0 2.0/6 >>>>> >>>>>I can't understand why Gambit Tiger was running on an Athlon 500. Can someone >>>>>explain please? >>>>> >>>>>A. Ponti >>>> >>>>It shouldn't need more. It's not much difference to the others' timings, much >>>>less than one extra ply. >>> >>> >>> >>>Don't make a fool of yourself by posting such nonsense. >>> >>>The speed difference between the winner on Athlon 1000MHz and Gambit Tiger on >>>Athlon 500 accounts for a 70 elo points handicap for Tiger. >>> >>>Uri also points out the fact that Gambit Tiger did not play with his own book, >>>which is even worse. >>> >>>You should have a good look at Gambit Tiger's performance with such a handicap, >>>and you will see that it is actually a very good performance. >>> >>>Instead of focusing on the fact that Gambit Tiger did less points than the 3 >>>programs at the top, which had ALL superior hardware (by AT LEAST a factor of >>>2), you should have a look at all the programs with superior hardware which did >>>WORSE than Gambit Tiger. There are 7 of them, count them. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> But the results of GT seem very poor indeed. If it had come equal first, I may >>>>have said that the few missing mhz. justifies it not getting more. But not this! >>> >>> >>> >>>You need some more knowledge about computer chess I think. >>> >>>Do the experiment yourself: take the same program, and let it run on a 1000MHz >>>computer and let the other copy of itself run on a 500MHz computer. Let them >>>play against each other. >>> >>>What result do you expect? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> But if this is blitz (I don't see it written what it is), that looks fine to >>>>me. Knowledge takes more time, and it is not many games anyway. >>> >>> >>> >>>The Tiger family is not optimized for a given time control. They perform equally >>>well at all time controls, blitz or tournament time controls. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >>I appologise. Maybe I'm speaking nonsense. It's certainly not right to scream it >>out if I don't know what I'm saying, but I was just trying to express my >>"reason-BASED" emotions in an immature way.(Not necesarily CORRECT reasoning) > > > >I think you should be more careful. > >Everything is not all white or all black in computer chess, but one thing for >sure is that speed is a very important advantage, and this advantage can even be >mathematically measured (with appropriate margins of errors). > >There are several rules of thumb that are useful to know. One of them is that, >so far, doubling the speed of a computer accounts approximately for a 70 elo >points gain. > >Another rule that is very interesting: if you want to get an approximation of >the elo difference between 2 players, you take the winning percentage of the >strongest, substract 50, and multiply by 7. Use the rule only if the winning >percentage is below 80%. > >For example, if you win 65% of the time against me, then your elo is 105 elo >points above mine (15*7=105). > >So a 70 elo points difference (the one you get by doubling the speed of a >computer) means that a program running on twice the speed will win on average >60% of the time against the program running at "normal" speed. > >And one last thing: 70 elo points difference is the difference (approximately) >between the number one on the SSDF list and the number 5. > >Quite a difference, isn't it, for just a speed doubling. > > > > >> No one can doubt for one momment the work you have done, and the great results >>thereof. I just thought even still, that advancement is quite gradual overall. > > > >Yes, it is. But I believe that the elo difference between Chess Tiger 12 and >Chess Tiger 13 is rather significant. Probably in the range 70 to 90 elo points. > >I don't know how to call this. A "jump" or a "gradual improvement"? > > > > >>But probably it is quite quick for such a delicate art. >> It is very good that GT can play very risky, and still be not less than >>perhaps anything previous, result wise. And, of course CT better still. >> When I used to play many computer/computer games e.g with same engine at >>different speeds, with programs that could be set in this way, I didn't always >>see a big difference in half or double the time. > > > >It is always interesting to notice the difference between the theorical result >and the actual result. > >It gives you an idea about the accuracy of experimental results, and the number >of experiments to do in order to be "close enough" to the theorical result. > > > > >> Thank you for correcting me! > > >You are welcome. > > > > Christophe I'm slowly begining to understand, and accept. Yes, Between Tiger and Tiger (12 and 13), it WAS a little hop. If it was around last year, it would have stayed undisputedly in first place. Let's see if it stays there this year! Thanks for the elo calculation, now I know how Uri Blass and others come up with these figures. I've read a few things about ELO ratings, but I had not found this. S.Taylor
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.