Author: Jouni Uski
Date: 01:13:38 06/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2001 at 01:23:51, Uri Blass wrote: >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 I am not sure about this... BTW if You want to get still better scores, you can set "combination search" in engine settings :-) Jouni
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.