Author: José Carlos
Date: 00:58:50 09/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 17, 2001 at 02:51:46, Christophe Theron wrote: >On September 17, 2001 at 02:42:53, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On September 17, 2001 at 02:31:44, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On September 17, 2001 at 01:22:41, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On September 17, 2001 at 00:17:12, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 16, 2001 at 17:35:42, Peter Berger wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On September 16, 2001 at 17:06:14, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>A naive question: why don't you just assume that The King is stronger than >>>>>>>Shredder instead of calling for some obscure reason related to time controls? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Christophe >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>He used another ( probably somehow broken) adapter before and got a 17-3 result >>>>>>for TheKing. Now with a working adapter he gets more realistic results. >>>>>> >>>>>>He didn't suggest that either engine is any stronger I think. >>>>>> >>>>>>There is no reference to timecontrol at all - it's simply about some broken >>>>>>Chessbase WinBoard adapter ( and that one definitely really is quite broken ). >>>>>> >>>>>>Regards, >>>>>>pete >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>"These results look very realistic since Shredder5 does not feel comfortabel on >>>>>the slow hardware." >>>>> >>>>>This is a direct reference to some hypothetic difference in performance >>>>>depending on the speed of the computer (which is the same as saying that the >>>>>programs perform differently depending on the time controls). >>>> >>>>It is not the same because it is possible that Shredder earns more speed >>>>relative to the king from fast hardware. >>>> >>>>I did not check it but I know that there are programs that earn more speed from >>>>fast hardware. >>>> >>>>I know that gandalf feels better on fast hardware relative to Junior not because >>>>of the time control but because it earns more speed from the fast hardware. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>> >>> >>>Using time controls twice as long is the same as doubling the computer speed. >>> >>>Faster hardware or longer time controls, that's the same. >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >>The problem is that when Junior become twice faster thanks to better hardware >>Gandalf becomes 3 times faster. >> >>These are not the exact numbers but this is the idea. >> >>Uri > > >It's not going to happen on any hardware. > >It can only happen if the hardware architecture has a major change (generally a >different generation of processor core). > >And it is not guaranteed that the next update in hardware architecture would >give a similar result. In the next update, Junior could be 3 times faster and >Gandalf only twice faster (maybe due to simpler code that puts less stress on >the branch prediction system of the P4 for example, who knows). > >In any case, on a given processor, doubling the speed is the same as having time >controls twice longer. > > > Christophe No it isn't at all. If I use EGTB, I'll benefit from increasing the disk speed. Otherwise, I won't. If my program is very big, I'll benefit from increasing the size of the cache. If it is small enough, I won't notice any difference. If I have a bunch of arrays with precomputed data, I'll benefit from fast memory more than if I calculate things on the fly, in which case the processor speed will be more important. I can give you more examples, but I think it's enough. Different hardware cannot be simulated by modifying the time controls. This is so obvious that I can't belive you deny it. 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.