Author: José Carlos
Date: 03:14:37 06/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2001 at 06:02:38, Christophe Theron 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 > > > >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 The interesting thing of the graph is the shape of the curves. Although the x-axis scale is not constant (which makes the "Crafty gets more positions almost linear" statement not correct) the shape of the curves show different strength increase with time for the three programs. Of course, you can argue that this is just a test, and doesn't prove anything itself. And I agree with that. But it will mean something _if_ further tests give similar results. José C.
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.