Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:06:24 01/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 07, 2002 at 11:44:44, Bas Hamstra wrote: >On January 07, 2002 at 10:29:12, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On January 07, 2002 at 07:35:14, Bas Hamstra wrote: >> >>>On January 07, 2002 at 07:08:08, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>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? >>> >>>Yes, I expected this. >>> >>>a) The probability that the "best" program wins a tournament is far smaller then >>>you would expect. We once did some math and simulation, the shocking conclusion >>>was that the probability that the best program wins the tournament was only 50% >>>or something near that. >>> >>>b) CilkChess is a bad program. If you practically only do piece square then even >>>17 ply won't help you. >>> >>>The server or the SSDF gives better data (more) to draw conclusions from. Both >>>indicate that hardware is an enourmous factor. >>> >>>Best regards, >>>Bas. >> >>The ssdf does not say that hardware is an enourmous factor > >Are you serious? When has there EVER been a program in the top-3 that was not on >the fastest chip? > >>A1200 against K6-450 is more than2 times faster and >>Crafty on A1200 is not better than the best programs > >What does this prove other than that it is hard to overcome a factor 2? It >hardly occurs! Clearly a BIG factor... > >>on K6-450. >>If your program is really better than GambitTiger >>when the hardware difference is only 2:1 then >>you may do it a commercial program. > >On 2 to 1 hardware advantage I fear not a single program. But that's easy to say >because that holds for everyone with a not too crappy program. Better at 2:1? I >don't know, it would certainly be an interesting experiment to test it. > >Bas. By your definition most of the programs are too crappy programs see http://home.hccnet.nl/leo.dijksman/index.html The programs in the second devision and lower devisions are most of the programs and I expect all of them to lose a match of 10 games against Tiger when the hardware difference is 2:1 against Tiger. I expect even most of the programs in the first devision that includes Crafty to lose a match against Tiger in the same conditions. Uri
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.