Author: Jorge Pichard
Date: 18:19:00 01/28/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 28, 2001 at 18:24:08, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 28, 2001 at 17:56:06, Jorge Pichard wrote: > >>On January 28, 2001 at 16:58:22, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On January 28, 2001 at 14:33:23, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>> >>>>Six Weeks ago I matched Nimzo 8 Vs Junior 6 at G\60 using an AMD Athlon 800 MHz >>>>And the score after 75 games ended up with a slight advantage of 6.5 points for >>>>Nimzo 8. Then one week after that match, I decided to match the same two >>>>programs, but I used an AMD K6-2 500 MHz instead, and the score after 75 games >>>>ended this time in favor of Junior 6 by almost the same margin as the previous >>>>match. I realized that certain program benefit more than others as the speed of >>>>the processor increases, but I wasn't satified yet and decided to test the same >>>>two programs one more time with a slower processor this time. I asked my friend >>>>John to test these two programs again with his old Pentium Celeron 333 MHz at >>>>G\60 and after 9 games, Junior 6 was beating Nimzo 8 by W7 D2 L0 and, at that >>>>moment I decided to stop the match. I can only conclude that Nimzo 8 benefit >>>>more as the speed of the processor increase, therefore, Nimzo 8 will not have a >>>>great SSDF rating by the middle of February, but if you have a P.C. with a >>>>processors higher than 800 MHz Nimzo 8 is one of the few programs that benefit >>>>the most by using the latest technology available. >>>> >>>>Pichard. >>> >>>I do not understand why do you work so hard in playing games. >>> >>>I think that you should find the number of nodes per seconf of nimzo8 and >>>Junior6 on: >>> >>>1) Celeron 333 >>>2) K6-2 500 >>>3)Athlon 800 >>> >>>For example >>>If you find that nimzo's number are 250000,500000,1000000 >>>when Junior's numbers are 300000,500000,830000 then it will be an excellent >>>proof that Nimzo earns more from the new processors. >> >>The NPS is not a true scientific measure of Knowing why a certain program >>benefit more than another from the gain in processors speed. For instance, if >>you provide Nimzo 8 to play a game by using 1 Minute per moves and at the same >>time you provide Junior 6 also 1 minute per move. You might have this escenario: >> >>1. Let say that after one minute Nimzo 8 was able to reach XXXXXX NPS by using >>the Celeron 333 MHz but was not able to find the best move within that horizon, >>whereas Junior 6 by reaching XXXXXX NPS was able to find a better move. Now when >>you increase the speed of the processor to a higher level (K6-2 500 MHz) Nimzo 8 >>is now getting closer to zero in, where it could find a better move provided the >>same amount of time of 1 minute per move, whereas Junior 6 is still providing >>almost the same evaluation. Finally, when you increase the speed of the >>processor to a minimum of 800 MHz, Junior 6 is of course calculating a higher >>number of NPS, but is not improving the evaluation too significant as compared >>to Nimzo 8 when is finally reaching is peak. > >The ssdf games are at 2 hours /40 moves that is more than twice slower than 1 >hour/game I will test these two programs using my friend Celeron 333 MHz at 2 hours /40 moves and post the games tommorow, He agreed to let his computer run overnite. Pichard. >I do not think that having p3-800 can compensate for the difference in nps. > >It means that if there is a problem with the ssdf results of nimzo then your >results suggest that the problem is different than the case that nimzo earns >more from slower time control on the same hardware. > > >The only possible problem that I can think of except the possible case that >Nimzo earns more nodes per second from faster hardware is the case when the >meaning of nps in faster hardware is not the same and Nimzo can see with the >same number of nps more if it has faster hardware when it is the opposite for >Junior. > >It is hard to check it for Junior because Junior do different jumps at different >time controls and it may jump from iteration 14 to 16 using hardware A when it >jumps from depth 15 to 17 using hardware B. >I do not know if it is possible to translate a time control for Junior with >hardware A to another time control with hardware B in order to force Junior to >do the same jumps. > >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.