Author: Chuck
Date: 15:57:29 11/06/05
Go up one level in this thread
I believe Uri meant Tasc R40 when he mentioned RES-40. That aside, I think there are alot of us who are interested in the games of dedicated computers, especially a (really) new model with new capabilities. It is very interesting to see just where this new hardware gets the Resurrection. On the other hand, I think it would also be good idea to test against some PC-based programs, but only where there is a mathematical probability that the Resurrection will score points. For instance, on the SSDF list the most tested program ever was Fritz 5.32 on a P200 (in terms of games played). It listed with a rating of 2495 and would be a viable opponent for the Resurrection in my opinon. The only problem is finding a Pentium 200 to match it with. I still have a laptop with a Pentium 233 and I have Fritz 5.32, but that's not exactly what the SSDF tested. Some other matches would be important, in particular to eliminate the problem that always occurs of a new strong chess engine coming out and only having weaker opponents to play, which skews the rating. There has to be some weaker and stronger opponents to get an accurate picture of the rating. In that respect maybe some other SSDF combinations would be good to play against the Resurrection, such as some of the 450 MHz programs; again the challenge is to find someone who has this hardware still and matching them to the owner of a Resurrection for some games. It will not be easy but the SSDF should certainly be able to help. The weakest rated entries on the SSDF list on Athlon 1200 MHz hardware are Yace Paderborn at 2604 and Crafty 19.17 at 2522, I believe the Resurrection should at least score some points against both if its rating is near 2500. Lets Get It On Regards, Chuck On November 06, 2005 at 14:27:44, Uri Blass wrote: >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.