Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: How make Fritz execute brute force search?

Author: leonid

Date: 18:20:33 07/26/00

Go up one level in this thread

On July 26, 2000 at 21:03:27, Jason Williamson wrote:

>On July 26, 2000 at 19:45:15, leonid wrote:
>>On July 26, 2000 at 18:29:36, Torstein Hall wrote:
>>>On July 26, 2000 at 18:22:47, leonid wrote:
>>>>On July 26, 2000 at 17:26:01, Tom Kerrigan wrote:
>>>>>On July 26, 2000 at 16:59:35, leonid wrote:
>>>>>>On July 26, 2000 at 13:40:32, Tom Kerrigan wrote:
>>>>>>>On July 26, 2000 at 09:18:41, leonid wrote:
>>>>>>>>How ask Fritz execute brute force search? I have Fritz 6 but if it is possible
>>>>>>>>for some other version (even better DOS version), please say me.
>>>>>>>>Recently I went to see Fritz nodes per second performance. Very impressive! Only
>>>>>>>>maybe I am missing exact numbers. NPS tend to grow when search is done by brute
>>>>>>>>force. This is why I try to find where Fritz numbers stays in real. But Fritz,
>>>>>>>>in dispite of its performance, is not exactly open minded piece of software.
>>>>>>>>Even its NPS I was able to see only through my Hiarcs 7.32 program.
>>>>>>>>Thanks in advance,
>>>>>>>My search is selective only because of null-move. I believe this is also the
>>>>>>>case with Fritz.
>>>>>>>With null move on, my program searches 634k NPS. (BK, short searches)
>>>>>>On what hardware do you have 634k? I was very impressed with Fritz numbers only
>>>>>>because they were between 220 and 320k on AMD 400Mhz. Your numbers are almost
>>>>>>twice as fast.
>>>>>Pentium III/800. On a K-6/400 I figure I'd get 350k NPS or so. And that's for BK
>>>>>positions; if I did a 5 second run of WAC, I'd get 780k NPS or so.
>>>>If I am not missing there something, your numbers are better that the Fritz
>>>>have. If you could someday check at what speed Fritz 6 goes on your hardware and
>>>>send me the numbers (best with some concret position), it will be very nice. Or
>>>>just put them here. If you numbers are so good, like I see them, you should be
>>>>really proud to say them in public.
>>>What are you talking about? Its more to a chess program than a high NPS! Even
>>>when doing a brute force search. Perhaps the Fritz eval is more complex etc.
>>>etc. The proof is in the the chess game it plays, not the NPS.
>>If you will see all the best programs you will find that biggest part of them
>>have surprisingly close NPS, leaving aside few exceptions. When you will write
>>your program as amateur (and ever more on C) there are very few chances that
>>your NPS will come even close to those numbers. If your NPS is actually not only
>>close but even better that the best monsters numbers, you have good chance to
>>reach them all later.
>>I was amazed by 650K on 800Mhz with a reason. Recently I found that numbers of
>>NPS for this computers should be around 2 000 000 NPS for minimax. Only around
>>25% of those numbers should be really reachable when all the advanced technics
>>of search is used. It give around 400K for 800Mhz Pentium. Raaching 650K is more
>>that simply good performance.
>On my machine:
>Junior 6a roughly 250-300K NPS Rating 2650
>Fritz 6a roughly 300-350K nps  Rating 2650
>Crafty 17.x 180-200K nps Rating 2550-2600
>Hiarcs 7.32 50-75K nps Rating 2600
>Little Goliath 2000 300-500k nps Rating 2500-2550
>Phalanx roughly 50k nps Rating 2500
>and so on.  Arg NPS I see is roughly 100-200k on my machine by the strong
>amateurs and around 200K+ with the exception of Hiarcs.  Yet the difference in
>speed isn't much between the top amateurs engines and top commercials engines,
>so where does the strength lie?  In the evaluation functions.  Don't worry about
>nps, it has about as much meaning as BOGOMips do in linux.

Thanks for numbers! But on what computer?


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.