Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 13:56:06 01/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 2001 at 16:22:51, Bertil Eklund wrote: >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 You forget Mchess and Cstal, both are much better at longer time controls. The same applies for Reb6-10 and Century 1.0, better at longer time controls than at blitz. I believe Bob also claims this to be true for his Crafty. Ed
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.