Author: Ernst Walet
Date: 03:05:56 12/21/97
Go up one level in this thread
On December 19, 1997 at 20:47:44, Bela Andrew Evans wrote: >Not only Rebel 9 can be chosen, but R7 and R8 as well. Since I >have R8, I compared decade 2.0/R8 engine with R8 itself. I used >as a test position 1. f4 e5 on infinite level, and waited until >the computer had an 8 ply line of play. R8 liked 2. fe d5 3. ed >Bd6 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Nc3 (8 ply) after 38 seconds (on my 486/133). >Decade 2.0/R8 had exact same 8 ply line, but took 44 seconds. Both >programs were operating in the same dos session, and both were using >512K hash. > >So, beyond the cool fact that anyone now can have the r7,r8,r9 >engines for free, why is Decade 2.0/R8 slower than R8 if both are >using the same engine? Same goes for the R9 engine. I've tested Rebel 9 and Decade2 with R9 engine both with 512k hash on differend positions and they show the same PV and score but Decade2 is somewhat slower. So if it is not the same engine, it doesn't differ much either. However, the limited hash size certainly chockes Decade2 within a minute on my P5/133. Take this into account and the fact that Rebel 9 has many more powerfull options e.g. Analyze include/exclude, book analyzing etc., many extra database options (extra pgn and epd options) i still think that esspecially Rebel 9 Light is worth the money. Futhermore, i think we will not gain anything on the long term if we take Ed out of business and i think that the difference between R9 and Dec2 is huge enough not to do so. For myself i've bought R9 light last week; the 56 times bigger hash table on my p5/133/32mb alone was enough reason! KK shouln't have reported this the way he did, it certainly doesn't add to his credibility. Ernst J.
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.