Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:00:20 10/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 29, 1999 at 04:09:54, Bertil Eklund wrote: >On October 28, 1999 at 23:47:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 28, 1999 at 13:49:18, Tony Hedlund wrote: >> >>>On October 28, 1999 at 09:31:22, Harald Faber wrote: >>> >>>>On October 28, 1999 at 08:44:50, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>>> >>>>>>I don't until there is proof. >>>>>>A) CM wasn't tested on P90 so there is no comparison and no evidence that Tiger >>>>>>is also best on MMX200 or K6-450 as Rebel9 was best on P90 before but wasn't on >>>>>>MMX200. So to conclude from the P90 result that Tiger will also be best on >>>>>>faster machines is too early and probably wrong. >>>>>>B) I don't like all that Tiger-hype since most of the games and results are not >>>>>>tournament games. >>>>> >>>>>?Hype? is propaganda based on smoke and this is not what I am doing. We have >>>>>quite outstanding results coming from several sources. Some results at 40/2, >>>>>some at 60/30, and so far all seem to indicate that Tiger is the strongest in >>>>>comp-comp. Results are facts, no hype. You may or may not like them, but your >>>>>choice of the word ?hype? is most unfortunate. >>>> >>>>You can bury me for the choice of that word if you want to, I don't mind. :-) >>>> >>>>Show me the tournament results. How many, who played them on which hardware >>>>(2PCs?)? >>>> >>>>>>Concerning TIger/K6-450 vs Prog X/P90 I think it is really nonsense to play such >>>>>>a match, no matter if Prog X has an almost safe rating. >>>>>>Take a class-a soccer team, let's call it team A, playing versus a team of the >>>>>>lowest regional class (call it Z). Team A wins 10-0. Let another team out of the >>>>>>class-a play against Z, call it team B. B wins 12-0. Would you say that team B >>>>>>is better/stronger than team A? I would never say that until I have more results >>>>>>and games within class-a. And you shouldn't say that too. >>>>> >>>>>SSDF people explained this very many times already. They might do it again in >>>>>this thread. >>>>> >>>>>Enrique >>>> >>>>I know and I was referring to that most significant argument. If a member >>>>doesn't have 2 K6-450 or 1xK6-450+1xMMX200 but only K6-450+P90, better leave >>>>playing programs against each other on these 2 machines. >>> >>>As Enrique wrote, we have explained this so many times before it's sad to go >>>down that road again. >>> >>>It doesn't matter which ELO the opponents to a new entrance have. We can play >>>200 Tiger 12 AMD K6-2 450 games against P90-programs, or we can play 200 games >>>against AMD K6-2 450 programs. We will get approx. the same ELO. It's in the >>>system made by Arpad Elo. >>> >>>Tony >> >> >>Have you checked this with any statistical measures? I typically find that >>given two otherwise equal programs, one advantage of some sort (faster machine, >>bigger hash, better book, etc) tends to exaggerate the rating produced by the >>Elo system. One example is doubling the cpu speed seems to make a program some >>70 points stronger in computer vs computer, but it does _not_ have that effect >>in computer vs human games... In other words, the Elo can be somewhat skewed >>without it being intentional. > >Hallo! > >Any proof for this, except for a gut-feeling!? > >Bertil SSDF Yes, although not scientifically rigorous enough to really be conclusive. I ran an experiment several months ago. I had a GM that wanted to play a bunch of games on ICC over several days, getting ready for some tournament he was going to. He would play about 60 blitz games per day. I let him play one day only vs the quad xeon, the next day only vs the quad P6/200, and then on the next two days I would swap machine after he had played about 1/2 of his games. The final result was that there was little difference in how Crafty did using the quad xeon vs the quad P6, yet the speed difference is 2x. These were _all_ 5 5 blitz, although 5 5 (5 mins on clock, 5 sec increment added after each move) is not real fast. By the same token, my scores vs computers between those two platforms are much different, with the quad xeon having a decided edge against every opponent the two boxes had in common. So against other programs, the 2x speed was very important. But at least, against this one GM, the difference was not significant. IE I think the xeon had maybe 3% more wins than the quad P6. I don't know what that translates into in terms of Elo, but it isn't much.
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.