Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 08:40:01 07/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 17, 2004 at 11:04:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >That's not my problem. IE he ran on a 64 bit processor. So _hardware_ >advantage is easy to compute. If he didn't compile it correctly, there's little >I can do about that. I'm not saying it is your problem and I'm not saying it's unfair either. That whole discussion doesn't make much sense to me as I see the job of getting access to a huge machine as simply part of the contest. Still, worth noting that Omid has some "easy" ways of getting a big jump in Elo for next time, whereas you probably cannot be expected to squeeze that much more efficiency out of Crafty's parallel search. > But the raw _hardware_ advantage is easy to compute. Also >the 1.4 is wrong, because gcc is worse than microsoft's compiler by at least >10%. I think 1.4 is a rather pessimistic estimate. If you had a good compiler then it would probably be closer to 1.5-1.6, so in some sense the 10% has already been factored out. But anyway, I consider 10% to be within the error margin with these types of ballpark numbers, they tend to vary quite a bit when you measure IIRC. -S.
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.