Author: Chris Taylor
Date: 04:50:31 10/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 2001 at 16:13:34, José Carlos wrote: >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. I think I understand what you mean. Optimise it. Fritz 3.10 can only use 16 meg hash. So it might get a boost by Compiling it in a different manner? Would a better program choice be say Rebel 9 It is not as old as F3, but it is outdated now. Against Say Fritz 6 or Junior 6. 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.