Author: José Carlos
Date: 13:11:01 10/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 2001 at 14:49:01, Christophe Theron 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. > > > >The overall result of the match is 18-6, that is a 75% win for the newer >software on inferior hardware. > >I look at my statistical tables and I see that this result is significant with >90% confidence. The error margin for 24 games is under 15% with 90% confidence, >and here we got a result of 25% above 50%. > >So I'm 90% sure that the new software on slower hardware is better than Fritz3 >on the faster hardware. > >I could even say that new software on slower hardware is *significantly* better >than Fritz3 on faster hardware, not even talking about what would happen on >equal hardware. > > >It's not as simple as "a lot of games are needed to make any conclusion". > >It all depends on the number of games and the difference between the opponents. >When the difference in elo is big (as it is the case here), you do not need a >huge number of games. > >However when the difference is small, you need LOTS of games. > >I have already published several times the statistical tables that I am using, >but apparently nobody has any interest for this... You are right. I don't remember your tables. Nor I need them now. Flip a coin 24 times: anything can happen. >> b. If by "progress in chess programming" you mean "software-only progress" > > >Yes I mean "software only". I'd be really interested in understanding this concept. Is is about theorical algorithms? Otherwise it's a mistery to me. Software is absolutely hardware-dependent, and I'm not talking of Mhz at all. I'm speaking of things such as: -If I have small memory I need to write a small program for it runs fast so I miss the great possibilities free memory gives me. -If I have a great graphical card, I'll write my application (I'm not talking about chess, but in general) with fancy images and graphical effects. -If I have a slow server for my database, I'll try to write very simple queries for not overloading the server. -If I have a very fast LAN, I can move a lot of data to the clients and make them run faster. Otherwise, I try to minimize netware traffic. -If I have a fast and big L2 cache I'll write my program to fit in it and it will run fine there, but very slow in a machine with small cache. I can give thousand if examples. Every single line of code I write, I do it knowing what system/s its gonna run in. I know my programs can't run in ZX Spectrums, and I don't care. So please, provide examples of pieces of code that are _absolutely_ independent from hardware. >>(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. > > >You overestimate what can be achieved by optimizing for a given hardware. > >We are talking about a difference of 5% in speed here, depending on what >processor you have optimized for, and this speed difference corresponds to a 5 >elo points difference. This is negligible because you would need a huge number >of games to detect such a difference. Answered above. I'm not talking of that "optimization" only. That's a small part of the thing. Anyway, don't get me wrong: I agree that software has improved. But I think _most_ of these improvements are allowed by hardware improvements. The idea Antonio gave in another post is very interesting. I'd really enjoy seeing what Frans can do to Fritz 3 to be _much_ stronger in that old hardware. > Christophe José C.
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.