Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 15:54:18 02/28/98
Go up one level in this thread
On February 28, 1998 at 17:16:49, Thorsten Czub wrote:
>
>>I wasn't implying anything wrong at all. Just the huge one-sided wins
>>by fritz looks amazing until I noticed the 3X speed handicap. That
>>makes
>>those particular win/lose numbers mean something different than if they
>>were
>>posted for equal hardware matches...
>
>I think Bob talks about the same I do.
>
>The ELO generated out of these results has not the same QUALITY it would
>have had if you would have used SAME machines.
>You cannot turn this arround and argue:
>But with hiarcs the things worked too.
>If it works with hiarcs, the same method does not have to work with
>fritz5 too.
>The 2 different programs get their playing strength from 2 different
>things.
>If you change ONE MAIN parameter in your experiment, and the parameter
>advances Fritz, than you don't get AEQUIVALENT or comparable results.
Without using my feelings but mostly my games statistics, I can say that
giving similar programs different hardwares emphasizes the score
differences.
By giving prog A on machine A twice the time you give to prog A on
machine B, it is not uncommon to get a 15-5 result. This doesn't fit
with the ELO rules.
The same problem arises when you self-play very similar versions of the
same program. A little change in the program can give a 60% score, but
often you would not notice any difference if you tried against different
programs.
It could be that some of the top programs are so similar that
differences between them are overestimated if hardware is that much
different.
That's why I would prefer to see the results of Fritz5 P200MMX against
other programs on P200MMX. With the results posted, the only thing I can
say is: "Buy a P200MMX, not a P90".
Christophe
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.