Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:28:20 10/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 22, 2002 at 20:14:04, Bob Durrett wrote: >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. It is a totally stupid take-off on "deep blue". In general, a "deep" program is one that is capable of using multiple processors to speed up the search (SMP-type architectures only so far). Crafty fits that category although you won't ever see it called "deep crafty" because it is a stupid name...
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.