Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Collector's Corner..A Call To Arms!

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 11:27:44 11/06/05

Go up one level in this thread


On November 06, 2005 at 13:45:51, A. Zanchetta wrote:

>On November 06, 2005 at 12:56:07, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>.......
>
>I simply do not agree :
>
>1) Resurrection's hardware is more powerful that dedicated computers but far
>behind today's PC.

I am not sure if fruit has an hardware advantage.
It may be the case if you compare mhz but I think that mhz may be misleading.

I think that it may be more interesting to compare nodes speed and it is
possible to do it in case that the same programmers programmed also PC programs
at the same time

I am not sure but if I remember correctly
RES-40 is based on old king engine and if that engine or something similiar is
also available for the pc then it is possible to compare nodes per second.

The question is how much speed in nodes per second get that engine when it runs
on A1200 and how much speed in nodes per second get fruit if it runs on A1200

If Fruit gets relatively more speed advantage then it suggests that one of the
following is correct:
1)fruit is not optimized for Resurrection's hardware
2)Resurrection's hardware is not faster than dedicated computers.

For me both options are the same.

 Running a match between Fruit on Res and any other program on
>a PC is like running a game between a PC and Sargon III running on my Apple II :

I do not agree

Sargon is an inferior software
Fruit is not an inferior software.

Resurrection Fruit has clearly chances against Yace A1200 or Gromit A1200 and I
expect it to lose a match against them but certainly not lose every game and it
is only fair to put it against better opponents and not only against weaker
opponents.

>useless. If you want to see how Fruit performs against other programs, put it on
>a PC !

In this case you are not going to see how fruit performs on inferior hardware.

>
>One example : Fruit on Pocket PC. If you look closely, you will see that Res
>hardware is a lot closer to a Pocket Pc than to a PC.
>Fruit 2.1 on my laptop evaluated approximately one million positions / second
>(that's what I remember from the tests I made with Fruit 2.1 when I was porting
>it to PPC) and Fruit on a Medium range pocket PC evaluates 30 000 positions /
>second.
>I will never make a match between Fruit on my Pocket PC and another program on
>my PC and try to conclude something from this match !!!!

I think that we can learn how fruit performs against other programs with 100:3
hardware disadvantage and I think that it is interesting to know it.

I am sure that it can beat some weak programs and I expect it to beat programs
like old movei in these conditions(movei00_7_99 and certainly movei00_7a).

Maybe it can even beat later versions of movei in these conditions but I am not
sure about it.


>
>2) The Res is a module for dedicated chess computers and it has to be compared
>to other dedicated chess computers.
>Most people interested by PC vs PC programs are not interested by dedicated
>machines and vice versa.

I am not interested in dedicated machines and my special interest in fruit is
simply because I am a fruit fan and  I want to see how fruit perform with
hardware disadvantage.

>
>3) I also do not agree about your conclusion that Active Chess is the only
>chance for another dedicated computer to fight against Fruit, and only counting
>on a bug in time management. I think that longer time controls will reduce the
>difference between different hardwares and therefore be more significant of the
>difference between the programs themselves.


I think that fruit's superior hardware is only an illusion.

It is not logical to believe that Ruffian is weaker program then some clearly
older program like task R40 because it is known that Ruffian is better than
everything that was programmed before 1999(R40 is before 1999) but it is exactly
what you suggest.

You suggest that Ruffian that is near the level of the task R40 is weaker
software because there is no other explanation that it cannot beat tasc R40 with
an hardware that you describe as superior hardware.

Uri



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.