Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:04:25 01/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2001 at 08:57:53, Christopher R. Dorr wrote: >Nonsense? Hardly. First off, what does it hurt? You seem to be acting as if the >testing itself harms something. It clearly does not. It adds information to our >'knowledge set', and informs a consumer that, if you are using a >single-processor box, you probably should *not* get Deep Fritz. I'm glad I now >know that. Had this testing revealed that DF was *better* on a single processor, >you would not have complained, because the consumer would then be able to buy a >better program, and this added knowledge would help him receive a stronger >program. Had they tested DF and found it better on a single processor, would you >have objected to the test then? > > >So how can the *testing* be bad, when it's only a particular result that you >don't like? The only way to find out is to test. The testing was done, and we >now have more information than we did before. How can that *possibly* be bad?I'm >glad it was done, and appreciate the time and efforts of the testers. > >Chris The only question is why is DF worse on a single processor machine? I don't suffer from that problem, as my SMP code simply isn't used... I think that the SMP version runs about .1% slower on a single cpu than the non-SMP version. I don't think that difference can be measured in terms of Elo.
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.