Author: Bernhard Bauer
Date: 01:03:00 09/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 11, 2001 at 10:32:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 11, 2001 at 03:39:52, Bernhard Bauer wrote: > >>On September 10, 2001 at 15:53:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On September 10, 2001 at 15:46:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On September 10, 2001 at 13:46:10, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 10, 2001 at 13:35:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>[snip] >>>>>>BTW crafty generally gets 299/300 on a 750mhz machine. If you are using an >>>>>>800 and getting 295/300 something seems amiss... >>>>> >>>>>I only allow 5 seconds per position. If your version can do that on 750 MHz, it >>>>>will rule the world. >>>>>;-) >>>> >>>> >>>>OK... didn't see the 5 seconds. I do know of at least one program that >>>>used to get 'em all at 5 seconds. :) >>> >>> >>>I just checked my log files. A 600mhz 21264 gets 298/300 in 5 seconds, and >>>gets 299 in 10 seconds, and gets them all in 60 seconds. Single-cpu. Tim Mann >>>ran the test last year some time. >>> >>>nice box. :) >>> >>>Actually that 21264 will get 298 in 3 seconds/move >> >>Here are some benchmarks from SPEC including the time for the crafty part. >>Sortet by Crafty-time, Int-peak and Ftp-peak. >>The Alpha 21264C has a small advantage. >> SORT >>SPEC benchmark suite MHz Fp base Fp peak Int base Int peak Crafty time Time / >>Ghz >>Compaq Alpha 21264C 1001 585 756 561 621 124 124,12 >>AMD Athlon 1400 426 458 495 554 126 176,4 >>AMD Athlon MP 1200 433 481 495 522 144 172,8 >>Compaq Alpha 21264A 833 571 644 511 533 156 129,95 >>Dell Pentium 4 1800 615 631 599 619 170 306 >>Dell Pentium 3 1000 329 340 454 462 191 191 >> >> SORT >>SPEC benchmark suite MHz Fp base Fp peak Int base Int peak Crafty time Time / >>Ghz >>Compaq Alpha 21264C 1001 585 756 561 621 124 124,12 >>Dell Pentium 4 1800 615 631 599 619 170 306 >>AMD Athlon 1400 426 458 495 554 126 176,4 >>Compaq Alpha 21264A 833 571 644 511 533 156 129,95 >>AMD Athlon MP 1200 433 481 495 522 144 172,8 >>Dell Pentium 3 1000 329 340 454 462 191 191 >> >> >> >> SORT >>SPEC benchmark suite MHz Fp base Fp peak Int base Int peak Crafty time Time / >>Ghz >>Compaq Alpha 21264C 1001 585 756 561 621 124 124,12 >>Compaq Alpha 21264A 833 571 644 511 533 156 129,95 >>Dell Pentium 4 1800 615 631 599 619 170 306 >>AMD Athlon MP 1200 433 481 495 522 144 172,8 >>AMD Athlon 1400 426 458 495 554 126 176,4 >>Dell Pentium 3 1000 329 340 454 462 191 191 >> >>BTW testing with WAC will not lead to any progress! >> >>Kind regards >>Bernhard > > >I disagree to your last comment on two grounds: > >1. new programs will _definitely_ improve as their WAC scores improve. Getting >the right extensions to solve these quickly is the fastest way to eliminating >the ugly tactical blunders likely in newer programs. > I wasn't refering to new programs. For new programs anything may be good. I was thinking about crafty and how to make it even better. Crafty has reached a high standard and solves 290+ positions. Improvements for playing better may not be visible by running test with very short time. >2. running WAC after significant changes will _also_ help a lot. If you >start missing some that you were getting instantly, you have broken something >important. I guess you know wac very well from many years and if you mean that it helps a lot to see that nothing serios is broken, I agree. BTW crafty was always very good in solving the famous Ortueta-Sanz position. The latest versions do not so well. This shows that you have changed something, but is anythin´g broken? Here is the position. [D]8/pR4pk/1b6/2p5/N1p5/8/PP1r2PP/6K1/ b Kind regards Bernhard
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.