Author: José Carlos
Date: 13:13:34 10/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 2001 at 15:38:48, Chris Taylor wrote:
>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
No he didn't miss the point. He said
[quote]
he could do some modifications to it to
make it play much better even on the same old hardware
-----------------------------
Fritz 7 won't run (probably) fine on that hardware.
José C.
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.