Author: Bertil Eklund
Date: 14:26:23 01/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 2001 at 16:56:06, Ed Schröder wrote: >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 Hi! Yes but out of the ten best or so. Yes, as you say the earlier Rebels are slightly weaker in blitz vs long-time games but C3 compares very good with the top, in example C3 crushes Rebel8. 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.