Author: Antonio Dieguez
Date: 10:09:08 10/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 2001 at 12:52:20, José Carlos wrote: >On October 18, 2001 at 10:58:26, Chris Taylor wrote: > >>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 > > Yes I understand what you intended, my message was answering Christophe's. > I don't know if the Tigers will run in old computers. I think that if you >install Win95 on them, the Tigers will run fine. > And yes, the reason why I suggest to test in old computers is what you say: >speed, optimizations, etc... For example, we use a lot of memory nowadays >because it's cheap and fast. So we code many things in arrays. If I had to run >on a 486 with 4Mb, I'd have to change my code, otherwise I'd be hitting virtual >memory all the time, and run at 200 nodes per second. > In old times, programmers knew the hardware they were running on, and used the >best instructions/techniques/algorithms they had to make their programs fast. >And they were very good doing that. But those instructions/techniques/algorithms >are not the best we can use _now_, because new hardware gives us possibilities >they didn't have then. > This is why I have so hard time figuring out what "software-only improvements" >mean. Right, we can't compare it seems. But I'm sure that if you ask Frans Morsch about Fritz 3 he could tell you that he could do some modifications to it to make it play much better even on the same old hardware.
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.