Author: Netcenter Chessbase
Date: 10:12:10 07/30/00
Go up one level in this thread
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. >>>>>>> You're right >>>>>>>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 >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. > >Leonid.
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.