Author: KarinsDad
Date: 14:02:06 03/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 28, 2000 at 15:38:46, blass uri wrote: >On March 28, 2000 at 14:24:20, KarinsDad wrote: > >>On March 28, 2000 at 12:20:50, blass uri wrote: >> >>[snip] >> >>>> >>>> >>>>I believe that testing programs with Hardware of 450 Mhz PIII or AMD K6 II >>>>450 Mhz is more than sufficient, since more than 70% of the people in the World >>>>has computer with equal or lesser capacity. And this test is done to give an >>>>idea of the playing strenght of the top playing programs such as Fritz 6a Junior >>>>6a etc.. to the majority of the people, not just the few including myself who >>>>can afford to have the latest computer and the best 3 programs available. >>> >>>I disagree. >>> >>>I want to know the ability of programs time control that is slower than >>>tournament time control on my pIII450 because I use programs for correspondence >>>games and in order to know it testing program on the latest computers is >>>important because 120/40 on the latest hardware is similiar to 240/40 on >>>pIII450. >>> >>>Uri >> >>What is your point? If program A at 450 Mhz has 12 rating points more than >>program B at 450 Mhz, what makes you think that running them at 1000 Mhz will >>make program B any better than program A? And is knowing or suspecting that >>really important? >> >>For any given program, regardless of whether it is number 1 on the SSDF or >>number 10, will it do any better than any of the other top ten programs for >>correspondence games? >> >>Can running a program at double the Mhz really give you any more information on >>how well it will perform for correspondence games? Or are the top ten programs >>so close to each other that for any given position, there is very little >>indication as to which program will give the best move based on their limited >>similar scopes, regardless of speeds? > >I agree that I will not get perfect information about the level of programs in >correspondence games because in correspondence games programs have hours to >calculate but I believe that the information will be closer to be correct if the >hardwrae of 120/40 games is faster. What information are you talking about? Are you talking about the actual move selected in a given position? Or are you talking about the general ability of a program to select good moves (i.e. higher rated programs are assumed to be able to pick better moves on average)? I'm confused on what you mean. >> >>A doubling of speed does not even increase the depth by one ply, so what does >>this buy you for the vast majority of positions (when comparing two programs)? >>Anything at all? > >Difference in the minority of positions can be sometimes decisive for the result >of the game. > >Uri Is it your opinion that if you have program A at 2580 and program B at 2570 at 450 Mhz and program A at 2595 and program B at 2600 at 1000 Mhz, that this illustrates that program B is better for correspondence chess? Or is it all just a big crap shoot when you are talking about the top ten programs? Any one of them can come up with a better move at any time frame, depending on the position. KarinsDad :)
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.