Author: leonid
Date: 18:36:47 07/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 26, 2000 at 20:51:07, Tom Kerrigan 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: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Hi! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>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, >>>>>>>>Leonid. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>>-Tom >>>> >>>>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. >>>> >>>>Leonid. >>> >>>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. >>>Torstein >> >>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 > >I don't know what word you mean here, but it's definitely not minimax. When you see all your nodes inside of ply, before finding your best value for ply. >>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. > >I'm not doing anything special. This is where my surprise lay. All the time it is possible that all my previous verification are wrong somewhere. This is why I ask about details that look so trivial. Recently I have seen in my program (something that presumably coincide with other programs) as 20% NPS compared with my minimax NPS. Now I speeded my program and those 20% reached 25%. Maybe you reached all 30% and it is from where your high numbers come. Leonid. >-Tom
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.