Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 11:42:35 01/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 07, 2002 at 12:06:24, Uri Blass wrote: >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 I have seen the programs. Tell me why you expect that, maybe we can solve the problem. Are you willing to take a bet? My money is on YACE bigtime. Let's say 8-2 for YACE if the books are about equal. Bas. Bas.
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.