Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 16:04:39 07/13/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 13, 2004 at 18:56:59, Lance Perkins wrote: >So, after all that ranting about having the "same" machine, to you, the >difference in processor architecture (AMD vs Intel) does not matter. > >Well, it does. So, is the AMD 3200+ (2Ghz), the same as 3.2Gz Intel? No it is not. But if all participants get the same thing it won't matter much. >Or should >it be a 2Ghz AMD vs 2Ghz Intel. It really gets muddy. It doesn't matter whether it is Intel or AMD, 1GHz or 2GHz, as long as it is equal for everyone. > >--- > >On July 13, 2004 at 18:42:52, Omid David Tabibi wrote: > >>On July 13, 2004 at 18:37:18, Lance Perkins wrote: >> >>>Using your horse race analogy: after a horse race, are you comparing horses or >>>are you comparing jockeys? >> >>Both of them, assuming all participants used horses, and not donkies. >> >> >>> >>>Now back to chess engines... Even on the same hardware, comparison is not >>>accurate. What if a program is optimized for Intel architecture, while another >>>is designed for AMD architecture? Picking one hardware would be unfair for one >>>of the engines. >> >>Most chess programs run better on AMD. But it won't matter if all of them run on >>Intel or all of them run on AMD (at most it will affect them by a few percentage >>in comparison to other programs, surely not 400%...). >> >> >>> >>>So really, what is your definition of the "world 'computer' chess 'champion'"? >>> >>>On July 13, 2004 at 18:24:50, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>> >>>>On July 13, 2004 at 18:15:42, Lance Perkins wrote: >>>> >>>>>Are you saying that given the same hardware, games between chess programs are >>>>>"fair" by your definition? >>>>> >>>>>How can it be if they use different opening books? >>>>> >>>>>What people put in the code is not even the same. >>>> >>>>It depends what you want to compare. If you want to compare chess playing >>>>strength, then of course opening books, evaluation, etc, are all part of the >>>>comparison. If you want to compare hardware, then run a unique program >>>>(benchmark) on each hardware and compare the results. >>>> >>>>But by the current format of WCCC you don't reach any of these conclusions. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Arasan's eval code has 3700 lines of code. Thinker has less than 1000 LOC. >>>>>Arasan's binary is 1.3M (1300K). Thinker is 80K (less that 16 times). Have you >>>>>seen a boxing match between 50lb kid and a 180lb adult? >>>>> >>>>>Maybe folks are having difficulty with the idea that a chess program is a >>>>>combination of hardware and software. Can you really do anything with just >>>>>sotware? >>>>> >>>>>The world "computer" chess champion is the best H+S combo. >>>>> >>>>>Cheers... >>>>> >>>>>On July 13, 2004 at 17:45:30, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 13, 2004 at 17:40:19, Lance Perkins wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>In a "war", that's how it is. >>>>>> >>>>>>Nobody claimed war is fair. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>On July 13, 2004 at 17:38:42, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The 2004 World Boxing Championship >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Rules: >>>>>>>>Each participant is allowed to use whatever weaponry he would like. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Participants: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Name Weapon >>>>>>>>---- ------ >>>>>>>>Bill no weapon >>>>>>>>Jack knife >>>>>>>>Jonathan handgun >>>>>>>>George M16 rifle >>>>>>>>Robert RPG >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>May the best boxer win!
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.