Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:43:23 10/23/97
Go up one level in this thread
On October 23, 1997 at 10:51:28, Chris Whittington wrote: > >On October 23, 1997 at 08:58:33, Michel van der List wrote: > >>Seems to me the that the arms race issue has been beaten to death. >> >>From an outsider's view; here's is the way I see it. >> >>- Chris W. would like to see all machines in the same class, his quote: >> "I can live with a tournament where 'effective' speeds vary by 20, >> 30 % or so." > >Hello Bob. Found the figures now ? :) > nope. Because by the *above* figures, the alpha/500 is "in the same class" easily. Bruce gets 1.7x or 1.8x from P6/200 to alpha/533. The K6/233 is around 15%-20% faster than the P6/200. I'm using a 500mhz alpha. So I am well within "20%, 30% or 'so' ". So what I asked for before, and what I still ask for now, is a *number*. ie 1.5X faster than K6/233 is ok. 1.51X is not. Just be sure you pick a number you can live with. Which will likely be K6time/PII300time, which seems a little "phoney" to me... But if you like, I have some test numbers from a 500mhz alpha. I can run crafty on a PII/300 here to get numbers for it... and for my P6/200... but I don't have an AMD in the house. Crafty is not a great test because it takes advantage of 64bit registers on the alpha, so the machine is not as fast as Crafty will make it look, it is partially the fact that crafty is "64-bit aware". > >>- Bob H. and Bruce M. merely claim that they are playing by the rules >> and are just bringing a micro-processor of their own choice. >> >>I can see where Chris' frustration comes from and I can also see that >>to Bob and Bruce this does not seem like a big deal. >> >>From my standpoint of view I like Chris' point, but that does not appear >>to be the way the rules are now. Also, I do not believe that a 500Mhz >>alpha is: >> a) A class above the rest (according to figures posted here by >> Bruce and Bob, disputed by noone, about 50% faster then a K6/233). > >How can we dispute the figures, we don't have the machines. I saw >figures last week alleging that Bob was 2.5 or 3.5 times faster and >Bruce some lesser but significant figure. Jason ran on a 500mhz alpha. The numbers he got were (after looking at them carefully) roughly 2x faster than the P6/200. the 2.5 was the number jason originally quoted, but some oddities in my statistical output made this comparison wrong. So 2.0 times a P6/200. The K6 is 1.2x a P6/200... so the /500 is perhaps 1.6X faster than the K6, *running crafty*. Running another program probably won't produce quite this. Perhaps 1.5 or a little less. The PII/300 is close (in non-chess tests here) to being 1.5X faster than the P6/200. My alpha is 2x faster. They are *not* far apart. I have *no* idea about the 766 machines at all... > >> b) A mini computer (the foot print of the 500mhz alpha on my desk >> -- a year old BTW -- is the same as the footprint of the pII/300 >> on the other side of my desk. > >As would be one footprint of any large rogue elephant you care to put in >your office. Size doesn't matter any more ...... :) > >> >>Now that Chris is bringing a pII/300, seems to me that he is within >>20-30% of what Bob/Bruce are bringing (can't see that 766Mhz thing >>happening...), although through a round-about way. > >No, if Thorsten gets the p2 300 (which is not sure). It has to be built >and paid for, this process can still go wrong before Friday. > >Anyway, apparently I'm going to be 20% or so above the K6 233's. Bob and >Bruce have some further unknown but significant factor on top of this; >and the critical issue is their advantage over the K6 233's; not some >stepped advantage system relating to all the intermediate variations >there might be. See above. The advantage for the /500 is not as significant as you think. The 733's might be all the way to 2.5X faster than the K6... but no more. . and perhaps 2x faster than the PII/300... if that... Notice that if you look at anything thru a microscope it looks awfully big... until you notice.... > >Remember, their main gripe was always referring to fritz on a P2 300. >THEY COULD HAVE JUST GONE TO THIS LEVEL INSTEAD OF WAY BEYOND IT. How? I don't buy machines for the hell of it. I found what I could get on a loaner basis. Again, you make money doing this. You can spend it any way you want, including on a faster machine. I don't make a cent doing this. I don't buy machines just to have the fastest thing available. > >> >>How about burying the hatchet on this one > >You msut be joking. > >Where should this burial take place ? May I suggest two hatchets, one in >Bob's alpha and the other in Bruce's :) > >> and just try to get the >>rules changed to something that every one can live with? (That would >>include changing the ludicrous amateur/professional distinction). > >Agreed entirely. > >As Bruce says, essentially its a huge mess. Who gets charged what is >allegedly 'wrapped up' in some sort of rule system, but, in effect, the >charging is entirely politically based. It was considered who money >could be extracted from, and then rules made up to cover it. They made >very sure this year with their rule change that there was no way out for >me, published chess program or no published chess program. > >Chris > >> >>It also seems to me that most computers that are going to be there >>will be within my definition of Micro, which would something like >>'anything you can buy for the price of a current top-of-the-line >>mainstream desktop system' (and I understand that is pretty vague). >> >>Michel
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.