Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 03:02:38 06/13/01
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
A program's NPS is probably one of the worse indicator about anything related to
playing strength or tactical abilities.
Like saying that a chess program is good because the engine is over 800Kb in
size.
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.