Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 17:06:21 03/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 26, 2001 at 18:49:47, Christophe Theron wrote:
>On March 26, 2001 at 18:35:17, Frank Quisinsky wrote:
>
>>Hi Christophe,
>>
>>a very interesting and good message, like that !
>>
>>Now a little bit in my superb English :-))
>>
>>01. I believe you forget the important factor, that you can playing engine -
>>engine matches on a dual system with ponder! An interesting player must not buy
>>a second computer and an autoplayer.
>
>
>I do not disagree, but my post was about the increase in playing strength from a
>dual system. Maybe it was directed more at those who think that they are going
>to crush everybody on the chess servers with an expensive dual system. :)
I think those persons are not completely insane then, because
in blitz programs search to very shallow depths. Especially the so called
3 0 matches which are popular (i personally never play with diep 3 0
against other engines as i don't care about that level as debugging
such a game costs me more time as the game itself costs for sure, not
to mention that the scores scroll too quick on my screen with 3 0 and
the shallow depths make the game not very serious representing tournament
level).
Most people who are running a prog on a chess server kick only on dick
height. In that respect a dual is a good thing for them. As in blitz it's
not 20 points or so it's more like 150 to 200 rating points at least
difference.
This is not true for all programs of course. Not all programs have a good
speedup at blitz.
Speedup depends upon a number of factors
- speed of the program in nodes a second
- intensity of RAM (usually depending upon hash probing speed)
- parallel method used
- number of extensions (more extensions means the search spaces
don't overlap so the speedup can never be as good then)
Etcetera.
>However I do agree that there are other nice things you can do with a dual. It's
>just that people should know exactly how much stronger it is, and it is not much
>stronger.
>
>
>
>>02. Interesting is to make analyzes with two engines and full engine power under
>>different GUIs. You can created more accurate results because an result with 2
>>engines in the same time is better as a result with only one engine !
>>
>>03. I make some experiments with dual systems and I believe the same engine with
>>factor 1.7 - 1.8 is on a 1 GHz machine maybe 25 ELO stronger than on 1GHz single
>>Pentium III.
>
>
>Well your experience seems to confirm my figures.
>
>
>
>>I think a dual system is at the moment the best alternative and people must only
>>buy a second processor, a little bit more ram, Windows 2000 or Windows NT and a
>>dual motherboard (at the moment is the best dual board in my opinion "ABit
>>VP6").
>>
>>For me not a question, a dual system is for chess the best system. For chess
>>players in chess clubs which make analyzes with computer programs, for computer
>>chess player (like engine-engine matches) and for my girlfriend (can looking
>>Miss Marple when I sitting for my dual system).
>>
>>By the way, I think the problem are the tablebases. You wrote here a very good
>>message and you speak about this problem. Engine-Engine games on one PC with
>>ponder and 5-piece tablebases are not very interesting. I believe that programs
>>which used the nalimov databases very agressive have here a problem. The engine
>>is very slow and programs which used in engine-engine matches the nalimov
>>tablebases not agressive have a better position.
>>
>>With 4-pieces I can`t see any problems with engine-engine matches on one PC with
>>ponder.
>
>
>If you are limited to 4 pieces TBs, then it's not an improvement at all!
>
>Of course 5-men TBs are going to produce much more TBs hits, and much more work
>for the hardisk. And of course the gain you can expect from TBs is going down
>for a dual system.
>
>
>
>>I wrote in German a review about Deep Fritz with a lot of information about dual
>>systems.
>>
>>Gambit-Soft review page:
>>http://www.gambitsoft.com/_reviews/reviews.htm
>>
>>My German is really better :-)
>>
>>Furthermore, I am very happy that the Deep Shredder vs. The World match have an
>>interesting sponsor ... INTEL ... !
>>
>>Here, I am very happy that Intel have interest on chess events. But it is clear
>>... Dual Boards are for chess very important and I play my CCE tourney with an
>>Dual Pentium 733 MHz system. This system is now 10 months olt and the fastet new
>>AMD processor is not better as on my "old" Dual Pentium III system if I use
>>Crafty, Fritz, Junior, Shredder, Amy ...
>
>
>I disagree. 733*1.7=1.246GHz. There are AMD processors running faster than
>1.3GHz, so your dual 733MHz is already worse than a fast single processor AMD.
>
>
>
>
>>And ...
>>Do you have see an engine-engine match on a dual system ?
>>It`s fantastic to see current analyzes from 2 engines.
>>
>>I have more fun with my dual system.
>>Come time come Deep Gambit Tiger :-))
>
>
>Next Monday Gambit Tiger 2.0 will find its way to your dual. :)
>
>
>
> Christophe
This page took 0.01 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.