Author: José Carlos
Date: 00:36:35 06/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2001 at 13:58:39, Ron Langeveld wrote: >On June 13, 2001 at 06:14:37, José Carlos wrote: > >>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. > > >It has been a while since I had my last mathclass, and frankly, I would have to >admit that a refresh course woudn't hurt. But maybe you would like to attend >that course as well. Are you being ironic? I'll guess you aren't ;) >Of course the scale is not linear. There's a good reason for this: it reflects >'some' branching factor, the time needed to get an extra ply of depth. A second >reason why the scale makes more sense than a linear one is the fact that after >having solved 74 positions in one minute the remaining population to solve is >only 26 and they are the hard ones. Solving 13 (=50%) more in 3 minutes is >actually good performance. In any case, i think the non-linear scale makes the >graph easier to interpret. > >Ron You're absolutly right. In fact, I didn't say linear is better at all. I only said 'it is not linear', so the statement 'Crafty gets more positions almost linear' is not correct. But of course it makes sense to measure relationship between strength and depth (which grows exponentially), and so it makes sense that the graph is logarithmic scale. 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.