Author: Hristo
Date: 12:57:59 01/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 2001 at 13:09:10, Christophe Theron wrote: >On January 28, 2001 at 19:19:55, Hristo wrote: > >>Christophe, >>I do beleive you are "wrong" (! ;-) ) and >>Jorge is correct. However Jorges test doesn't undoubtedly prove >>his conclusion. In some cases it is not a prove at all. ;-) >> >>It is much more likely that some programs benefit more from >>increased CPU (memory, ...) performance than others. >>This is the case with many computer aided algoritms in general! >>Take for example linear search versus binary search. Then use those >>algorithms on a slow computer than can only generate 10 items to be searched >>and another faster computer that can generate 1000 items. This is self evident, >>no?! Computer chess programs present us with a significantly more >>complicated algoritm which in its own right is not a perfect solution >>to the problem at hand (chess). Firstly the benefit from improved performance >>might not be large enough to measure. Secondly the "benefit" (extra more ply >>than the opponent) might cause worst game results. (!!!) >> >>Perhaps someone has done this before. >>Take two computers C1 and C2. Where C1 is half the speed of C2. >>Take two programs A and B. >>Play a match of 100 games using the same program on both computers: >>dA = A-on-C1 vs A-on-C2 >>dB = B-on-C1 vs B-on-C2 >> >>? dA > dB then A benefits more from higher speed. >> >>This is not perfect test. However I'm sure you are going to get consistently >>different (dA != dB) results. >>It would be interesting to know what a test like that yelds ... ;-) >> >>hristo > > > >Of course it would be interesting and I'm ready to change my mind if a relevant >experiment shows I'm wrong. > >But nobody cares about doing it. > >On the other hand, there is data proving (or at least suggesting) that faster >hardware does not impact on relative playing strength: have you noticed that >blitz tournaments results almost always look like the SSDF list? > >A huge blitz tournament has been played recently (a lot of games where played, >which makes the final result interesting), and a member of the SSDF has pointed >out that the result looked exactly like the top of the SSDF list. You can still >find the messages on this forum. > This is interesting! Probably it points out that the different approaches being used (chess algorithms) are relatively "incorrect" the same amount. In this case we are measuring the amount of "error" the programs produce while attempting to solve the problem (play chess). But with different programs the errors are (could be)in nature different, so then the whole speed issue becomes kind of phony. It is quite possible that the effects of speed do not greatly (if at all) change the relative playing strength when two different programs are compared. I will play a few games using crafty. One PC is PII-450 the other is Athlon-1G. No oppening book and No endgame table bases. hristo > > 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.