Author: Bertil Eklund
Date: 15:26:56 01/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 2001 at 17:30:27, Uri Blass wrote: >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 > >What is the evidence for it? > >I know that Rebel9 earns more from time than Rebel8 based on the ssdf games and >I remember some results that suggested that Rebel7 is better than Rebel10 at >blitz when the oppositte is truth at longer time control so I do not see a >reason to include rebel6-10 and century1 in the same package when we discuss >about the question which program earns more from time. > >I also do not know if part of them earns more from time relative to other top >programs. > >I know the claim for tal but tal is not a top program and bertil discussed about >the top programs(the same for mchess). > >I also have doubts about the question if the claim for tal and mchess are >correct > >I saw some games of mchess at tournament time control and I was not >impressed(the last game was the game of it against Rebel Century from thorsten's >tournament). > >I do not know if Crafty is better at long time control. >Crafty has one advantage at blitz(the fact that it never lose on time) >Some programs like Nimzo and Junior can lose on time in blitz. > >Uri Hi! Yes, I agree with Ed about Mchess and Tal. I haven't played much with Tal but I have played several thousands games with Mchess and the difference is very big. I think I have played more than 15000 games with "Rebels" on all time controls and Ed is right. C3 is much better in blitz than its brothers.I haven't play so many games with Crafty but i believe it performs about the same on all time-controls. 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.