Author: Lance Perkins
Date: 16:21:45 07/13/04
Go up one level in this thread
So if engine A and engine B both run on the same AMD hardware, then the playing field is equal? Sorry to disagree here. If engine A is optimized for AMD and engine B is optmized for Intel, it obviously not equal. Thinker, for example, is optmized for Intel only. Would I optmized it for AMD just to join your AMD-only tournament? I would not. Its not fair. On July 13, 2004 at 19:04:39, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >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.