Author: Chris Taylor
Date: 12:38:48 10/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 2001 at 13:09:08, Antonio Dieguez wrote: >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. He would call it Fritz 7, after all, with all the modifications since fritz 3.10, that it what it is called. But I believe you miss the point. It was, how would old on new, compare to new on slower? The jury is still out.... 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.