Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:48:02 11/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 2000 at 12:20:42, Ed Schröder wrote: >On November 19, 2000 at 12:13:07, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On November 19, 2000 at 10:14:46, stuart taylor wrote: >> >>>On November 18, 2000 at 20:00:14, Aloisio Ponti Lopes wrote: >>> >>>>Thüringen Mohlsdorf 2000 >>>> >>>>Junior 6.0 Athlon 1000 +1 -1 +1 +0 -1 1 5.0/6 >>>>Deep Fritz 2x P3-866 -½ +1 +1 -1 +½ r 4.5/6 >>>>Nimzo 7.32 Athlon 1000 -½ +1 -0 +1 -1 3.5/6 >>>>Gambit Tiger 1.0 Athlon 500 -1 +0 -1 +½ -½ 3.5/6 >>>>Shredder 4.0 Athlon 800 -1 +1 -0 +0 -1 3.5/6 >>>>Chess Tiger 13.0 P3-840 +½ -0 +1 -1 +0 3.0/6 >>>>Hiarcs 7.01 P3-500 -½ +1 -½ -½ +0 3.0/6 >>>>Goliath Light 2.0ß Athlon 650 +½ -0 +0 -1 +1 3.0/6 >>>>Rebel Century - Athlon 1000 -0 +0 -1 +1 -½ 3.0/6 >>>>Zarkov 5.01 Athlon 1000 +½ -0 -½ +1 +0 2.5/6 >>>>Hiarcs 7.32 Athlon 1100 +0 -½ +½ -0 +1 2.5/6 >>>>Gandalf 4.32f Athlon 1000 +0 -1 +½ -0 -0 2.0/6 >>>>Chigorin's Way Cel. 500 -0 +½ -0 +0 +½ 1.0/6 >>>>Chessmaster 6000 P2-400 +1 -0 +0 -0 -0 2.0/6 >>>> >>>>I can't understand why Gambit Tiger was running on an Athlon 500. Can someone >>>>explain please? >>>> >>>>A. Ponti >>> >>>It shouldn't need more. It's not much difference to the others' timings, much >>>less than one extra ply. >> >> >> >>Don't make a fool of yourself by posting such nonsense. >> >>The speed difference between the winner on Athlon 1000MHz and Gambit Tiger on >>Athlon 500 accounts for a 70 elo points handicap for Tiger. >> >>Uri also points out the fact that Gambit Tiger did not play with his own book, >>which is even worse. >> >>You should have a good look at Gambit Tiger's performance with such a handicap, >>and you will see that it is actually a very good performance. >> >>Instead of focusing on the fact that Gambit Tiger did less points than the 3 >>programs at the top, which had ALL superior hardware (by AT LEAST a factor of >>2), you should have a look at all the programs with superior hardware which did >>WORSE than Gambit Tiger. There are 7 of them, count them. >> >> >> >> >>> But the results of GT seem very poor indeed. If it had come equal first, I may >>>have said that the few missing mhz. justifies it not getting more. But not this! >> >> >> >>You need some more knowledge about computer chess I think. >> >>Do the experiment yourself: take the same program, and let it run on a 1000MHz >>computer and let the other copy of itself run on a 500MHz computer. Let them >>play against each other. >> >>What result do you expect? > >You get results in like: > >70-30 >65-35 These results suggest more than 70 elo difference. 70-30 suggests 160 elo difference and 65-35 suggests 120 elo difference. 70 elo difference means that the expected result is between 59-41 and 58.5-41.5 Uri
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.