Author: Uri Blass
Date: 22:23:51 06/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2001 at 01:14:51, Jouni Uski wrote: >I run these 3 programs in my test suite, which contains 100 hard, but correct >ECM positions. I compared solved positions after 5s, 20s, 1m, 3m and 10 minutes >in my AMD 450Mhz (hash 90-128MB). Here's results: > > 5s 20s 1m 3m 10m >Chess Tiger 14 30 49 62 77 84 >Goliath Light 17 46 74 84 91 >Crafty 18.7 12 30 47 64 82 > >Here's same as graph: > > | x >90 + > | > | > | x t > | c >80 + > | > | t > | x > | >70 + > | > | > | c > | t >60 + > | > | > | > | >50 + t > | c > | x > | > | >40 + > | > | > | > | >30 + t c > | > | > | > | x = Goliath >20 + t = Tiger > | c = Crafty > | x > | > | c >10 + > | > | > | > | > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > 5s 20s 1m 3m 10m > >Interestingly Crafty gets more positions almost linear. Tiger starts best, but >then Goliath goes over. This is no big surprise, when it peaks over 1,4MNPS. > >Jouni The number of nodes is not important. I believe that Goliath is best only because it is tuned for test positions. Uri
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.