Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: How about open weaponry boxing championship?

Author: Omid David Tabibi

Date: 14:14:30 07/14/04

Go up one level in this thread


On July 14, 2004 at 17:07:37, Peter Berger wrote:

>On July 14, 2004 at 16:53:39, Omid David Tabibi wrote:
>
>>One iteration deeper Falcon switches to the other move which results in actual
>>threefold repetition.
>>
>>In other words, had Crafty not had the hardware advantage it would have missed
>>the win,
>
>Most probably correct, agreed - although of course this is not about hardware
>advantage, but just about its own hardware . I could try it on my notebook, but
>I will just have a look at the logfile later.
>
>
>> and had Falcon had the 4x hardware it would have found the correct draw
>>(and with that hardware advantage probably also found a correct winning line).
>>Right?
>
>That's speculation when it is about the win.

But no speculation as to the draw on equal hardware (whether both ran on 4x or
1x).


>You have access to Falcon - show me
>a winning line found by it with more time. The game was very interesting; I
>would be interested to discuss and analyze it.

I will surely analyze the game in detail. It is very hard to believe that white
did not have a win there.



>
>Btw, you play with this 4x number very carelessly IMHO. *For Crafty* a Quad
>Opteron is indeed about four times faster than an overclocked AMD2.5GHz 32 bit
>system, but that's the result of programming effort. While Shredder seemed to
>get a very decent speedup, the same was not necessarily true for Fritz and
>Junior, judging by NPS, although I of course can only compair with commercial
>versions - Frans Morsch at least seemed to be impressed by Crafty's speedup.
>
>You probably will have quite some work to do to reach similar speedups as Crafty
>once you get your hands on a Quad Opteron :)

I say "at least 4x", because each of those Opteron processors was faster than my
2.0GHz AMD 64. In fact I think it was quite more than 4x...


>
>
>>>And Ra8 is probably not about search at all.
>
>Have you tried this one too ?

No, but that was not the losing move (even though it was clearly a bad move).
Ra5 lost the game, when a draw could have been easily achieved by threefold
repetition.






This page took 0.01 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.