Author: Severi Salminen
Date: 09:21:25 01/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
>If you do the right comparison then it is clear that B can get better results >with faster hardware. > >You only need to do the right comparison and use faster time control on the >faster hardware so A will calculate the same number of nps per move when B will >calculate more nps per move. > >If we agree that for all programs more nps per move is better than it is clear >that B can get better result on faster hardware when you use the right time >control that is different for both hardwares. Bottom line: of course more NPS is better, but the ratio of NPS on different platforms doesn't necessarely have a relation to the ratio of playing strenghts. It has if the branching factor is the same. But usually it is not, so you can't compare. But it _is_ true if we scale the time control down. So we have two cases: 1. gain from speed (this _is_ the same as longer time controls on same platform, if both programs use same pondering). Many things have incluence on this: branching factor, hashtable management... 2. gain from different architecture (this is something you just have to test). You can't predict the behaviour on different platform. You can't say that "Nimzo gains more from faster hardware" if the real issue is the platform, not the speed. I think most chess programmers test only (optimize) on one architecture so they can't know what happens if they move from Athlon to Pentium and so on. Severei
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.