Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 17:14:04 10/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 22, 2002 at 20:03:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 22, 2002 at 15:55:44, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On October 22, 2002 at 05:57:23, Brian Katz wrote: >> >>>On October 22, 2002 at 04:52:07, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On October 22, 2002 at 03:30:12, Stefan Zipproth wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 21, 2002 at 07:53:53, Brian Katz wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On October 21, 2002 at 07:40:54, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>It is well known that Deep Fritz 7 needs fast hardware to play at full strength. >>>>>>>And in this respect your P_II/350 MHz is indeed too slow and any comparison with >>>>>>>Fritz7 only a waste of time. >>>>>>>Kurt >>>>>> >>>>>>Thank you Kurt >>>>>>That is the answer I was looking for. I suspected that that might be the case. >>>>>>Thank you and Uri for your replies. >>>>>>Much appreciated. >>> >>> >>>>>>Brian >>>>> >>>>>... no, that's not the answer. 8 games say nothing. Like it was said before, try >>>>>tossing a coin 8 times. Both sides have the same "winning" chances, but you will >>>>>easiliy get results like 5-3. To measure the difference between these two >>>>>engines significantly, you would need to play thousands (!) of games, >>>>>independend from time controls. This is simple math, but unfortunately no one >>>>>seems to believe it. >>>>> >>>>>Just use ELOstat - or play another 8 :-) >>>>> >>>>>Stefan >>>> >>>>8 games do not prove which program is better but they may suggest some >>>>conjectures. >>>> >>>>It is a waste of time to play some thousands of games instead of checking the >>>>number of nodes of Fritz at slow hardware and fast hardware to find out if Deep >>>>Fritz7 does not earn more from fast hardware. >>>> >>>>I have not both programs so I cannot do the comparison on fast hardware. >>>>The poster gave some information about the number of nodes in his slow hardware. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>Hello again URI >>> >>>Please tell me why all these other posters think that I am only basing my >>>findings on 8 games. I have run many many tournaments with all different time >>>controls and hash settings. A good number of short tournaments,( approx. 20)and >>>quite a few long 20 game matches. I have also had quite a few 20 round >>>tournaments with many chess engines, not only DF7 vs F7 I have had Deep-Fritz >>>which is (based on Fritz6) come out ahead of DF7. >>>The simple fact of the matter is that DF7 does not perform as well on my >>>computer as Fritz 7. >> >> >> >>My deepest feelings here go to Frans. >> >>I feel exactly the same when I read this as when I read that "Chess Tiger 15 >>does not perform as well as Chess Tiger 14 on my computer". >> >>DF7 is definitely stronger than F7, and CT15 is definitely stronger than CT14. >> >>But well... If you do not FEEL that it is the case, what can we do? >> >> >> >> Christophe >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>This is not based on just engine tournaments, this is also based on the play on >>>my computer account on ICC. I find DF7 struggling through every game. This is no >>>longer a coincidence. >>>I know that 8 games as well as anybody do not mean anything. I have had engines >>>matches where an engine wins the first 4 games in a row in a ten game match only >>>to lose the match in the end. >>>I know I believe it was Bob Hyatt who said that you need at least 700 games >>>between engines to get an accurate picture. >>> >>>I am just reporting what I have found thus far. >>>I agree that this must be a hardware problem. >>>I don't think I need 700 games when DF7 is losing almost every tournament I have >>>run. It had won a few. >>>DF7 on my computer, clearly does not reflect what Chessbase boasts in relation >>>to DF7's increased positional knowledge and endgame knowledge and increased >>>playing strength over Fritz 7 when used on only a single processor. >>> >>>So please, who ever replies to this post. MY findings are not based on only 8 >>>games, they are based on many. At least 200-300 games. >>>What I found odd in the last tournament I ran is the extremely high hash table >>>settings for Fritz 7. I thought that this would handicap Fritz 7 but it still >>>performed better anyway. >>> >>>Brian Katz > > > >It is also possible that Deep Fritz 7 is better on multiple-cpu machines only. >IE the >improvements might have slowed it down a bit on one cpu, but made the parallel >search >more efficient. If it isn't being used on a multiprocessor, there is little >reason to own a >"deep" program, generally... What, exactly, IS a "deep" program? Is Crafty a "deep" program? As far as I know, only one company is using that term, "deep." It seems to be more of a product name than anything else. Ever heard of "Deep HIARCS"? Bob D.
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.