Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 04:08:08 01/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 06, 2002 at 21:17:43, Bas Hamstra wrote: >...because the fastest hardware simply wins. You can invent all kind of >ingenious tricks, but it's nothing compared to faster hardware. On 2x faster >hardware Tao just crushed GT 3x in a row and won the latest 10 15/0 games at >FICS against strong opponents on slower hardware. Come on, the only fair way to >compete is on equal hardware. I don't want to buy a computer twice a year just >for CC tournaments, that's ridiculous. IMO the competition would be much more >satisfying on equal hardware. Factor 2 hardware difference means hard to win for >any program against a not too bad opponent. Anything above that makes the >chances *way* too small to be fair. Yet that is quite normal in tournaments and >you won't hear anyone about it. Program X played this AMAZING knight sac >againtst program Y!! Hardware differences seem to be simply ignored. And that's >crazy, in fact. > >Bas. Then why didn't Zugzwang win IPCC99. It is not a bad program at all. In tests it completely annihilated the commercial programs they tested against. Zugzwang was at like 512 alpha processors and getting millions of nodes a second. I can't even remember how much, but zugzwang is already a slow program on a PC... ...it was using (making use of message passing and thereby losing many factors of speed but it is worth it) global hashtable and was having more Mhz and bigger hashtables than anyone else. This though the 17 ply searching Cilkchess at like 256 (or 500?) sun processors wasn't searching undeep either. Yet it lost chanceless from 8 ply searching Lambchop. How do you explain that?
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.