Author: Jorge Pichard
Date: 19:04:40 01/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 2001 at 18:26:56, Bertil Eklund wrote: >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 My friend John and I decided to stop the 2nd match on his Celeron 333 MHz at 2 hours \40 moves after realizing that Nimzo 8 was benefiting more than Junior 6 at this time control using this particular processor, whereas Nimzo 8 didn't win a single game at G\60 after 9 games. We stopped the 2nd match after four long games with a score of W3 D1 L0 in favor of Nimzo 8. Pichard.
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.