Computer Chess Club Archives




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

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:
>>>>>>>>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
>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

>>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.



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.