Author: Chris Taylor
Date: 07:58:26 10/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 2001 at 07:22:26, José Carlos wrote: >On October 17, 2001 at 15:28:30, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On October 17, 2001 at 14:56:16, Chris Taylor wrote: >> >>>I have played Fritz 3.10 against newish progams. >>>F3 ran on an AMD 1200 inside F6 gui, using General.ctg >>>1 x 1200 played against the PIII 733, the other played against the AMD 800 >>>The opponants >>> >>>PIII 733 Gambit Tiger 2.0, WcraftyP3 1811. This was offered as optimised for >>>P3... >>>Tiger ran with its own book, in F6 gui. Wcrafty's book is from Bob's site. >>>Crafty ran under Remi Coulom's wbenging0047, with full auto232. >>> >>>AMD 800 Junior 4.6, Junior 6. Both versions of Junior ran under F6 gui, with >>>Junior.ctg >>> >>> >>>One of the oldest programs, that can run on my newest machines. Versus some >>>newish stuff. >>> >>>Game in 1 hour... >>> >>>Junior 4.6 v Fritz 3.10 4-2 >>>Junior +3 -1 =2 >>> >>>Junior 6 v Fritz 3.10 4½-1½ >>>Junior +3 -0 =3 >>> >>>Gambit Tiger 2.0 v Fritz 3.10 5½-½ >>>Tiger +5½ -0 =1 >>> >>>WcraftyP3 1811 v Fritz 3.10 4-2 >>>Crafty +3 -1 =2 >>> >>>Just a small sample of games. Anyone wanting the pgn file of 24 games is >>>welcome to it. >>> >>>Chris Taylor >> >> >> >>Is anybody still wondering if there have been progress in chess programming in >>the last years? >> >> >> >> Christophe > > I don't say there isn't. It'd be absurd. But a couple of remarks: > > a. Your statement seems to imply that such a small number of games proves "the >progress". I guess I got you wrong because you always claim a lot of games are >needed to make any conclusion. > b. If by "progress in chess programming" you mean "software-only progress" >(whatever that means -that concept is beyond my understanding, because I always >optimize my code for a certain kind of hardware-), no conclusion can be made >without testing in both new and old hardware. For example, if Fritz 3 is to be >evaluated, 486-33 would be a good hardware to test the programs in. Then, >comparing results in both kind of hardware would yield more interesting >conclusions. > > José C. I only did a taster, a small sample. I did not want to tie the computers up for a week per match up. Just so there could be a clearer result. Over 4 programs all giving Fritz 3 the beating, it seems a strong indication of old on shows little improvment I would like to take this further. If I could get or borrow a pair of slow computers and then run the test with new programs on old slow computers. Then I will go ahead. A question I have would the likes of Tiger, Fritz 6, etcetera, run on an old computer? Are they not compiled for the new stuff. The slowest computer I can get my hands on is a P 150. I can buy this for £35. It would not even be a waste of money as I could do word-pro on it. I see so many variables in speed, program opimization, would it be worthwhile? Chris
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.