Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 23:53:21 11/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 2000 at 21:46:07, stuart taylor 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?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> But if this is blitz (I don't see it written what it is), that looks fine to
>>>me. Knowledge takes more time, and it is not many games anyway.
>>
>>
>>
>>The Tiger family is not optimized for a given time control. They perform equally
>>well at all time controls, blitz or tournament time controls.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Christophe
>
>I appologise. Maybe I'm speaking nonsense. It's certainly not right to scream it
>out if I don't know what I'm saying, but I was just trying to express my
>"reason-BASED" emotions in an immature way.(Not necesarily CORRECT reasoning)
I think you should be more careful.
Everything is not all white or all black in computer chess, but one thing for
sure is that speed is a very important advantage, and this advantage can even be
mathematically measured (with appropriate margins of errors).
There are several rules of thumb that are useful to know. One of them is that,
so far, doubling the speed of a computer accounts approximately for a 70 elo
points gain.
Another rule that is very interesting: if you want to get an approximation of
the elo difference between 2 players, you take the winning percentage of the
strongest, substract 50, and multiply by 7. Use the rule only if the winning
percentage is below 80%.
For example, if you win 65% of the time against me, then your elo is 105 elo
points above mine (15*7=105).
So a 70 elo points difference (the one you get by doubling the speed of a
computer) means that a program running on twice the speed will win on average
60% of the time against the program running at "normal" speed.
And one last thing: 70 elo points difference is the difference (approximately)
between the number one on the SSDF list and the number 5.
Quite a difference, isn't it, for just a speed doubling.
> No one can doubt for one momment the work you have done, and the great results
>thereof. I just thought even still, that advancement is quite gradual overall.
Yes, it is. But I believe that the elo difference between Chess Tiger 12 and
Chess Tiger 13 is rather significant. Probably in the range 70 to 90 elo points.
I don't know how to call this. A "jump" or a "gradual improvement"?
>But probably it is quite quick for such a delicate art.
> It is very good that GT can play very risky, and still be not less than
>perhaps anything previous, result wise. And, of course CT better still.
> When I used to play many computer/computer games e.g with same engine at
>different speeds, with programs that could be set in this way, I didn't always
>see a big difference in half or double the time.
It is always interesting to notice the difference between the theorical result
and the actual result.
It gives you an idea about the accuracy of experimental results, and the number
of experiments to do in order to be "close enough" to the theorical result.
> Thank you for correcting me!
You are welcome.
Christophe
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.