Author: Bertil Eklund
Date: 13:22:51 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. > > > > Christophe Hi! You are right except for two exceptions (if you take the top 10 program in SSDF) I have played several houndred ( in some cases thousands) blitz-games with almost everyone of them. There is no big difference except for Nimzo7 that is clearly weaker in blitz vs tournament-time control and Hiarcs that is better in blitz (Uri says it is because the "hash-bug") As you know Genius can still compare in blitz with all programs on a "slow" computer but is almost without chance on 2h/40. I believe Marcus Kästner has the same impression of the above programs as he is aware of a lot of blitz-games. So in this case Jorge are right about Nimzo but I can't understand that he is sure after 9 games! Bertil
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.