Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:29:12 01/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 07, 2002 at 07:35:14, Bas Hamstra wrote: >On January 07, 2002 at 07:08:08, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On January 06, 2002 at 21:17:43, Bas Hamstra wrote: >> >>>...because the fastest hardware simply wins. You can invent all kind of >>>ingenious tricks, but it's nothing compared to faster hardware. On 2x faster >>>hardware Tao just crushed GT 3x in a row and won the latest 10 15/0 games at >>>FICS against strong opponents on slower hardware. Come on, the only fair way to >>>compete is on equal hardware. I don't want to buy a computer twice a year just >>>for CC tournaments, that's ridiculous. IMO the competition would be much more >>>satisfying on equal hardware. Factor 2 hardware difference means hard to win for >>>any program against a not too bad opponent. Anything above that makes the >>>chances *way* too small to be fair. Yet that is quite normal in tournaments and >>>you won't hear anyone about it. Program X played this AMAZING knight sac >>>againtst program Y!! Hardware differences seem to be simply ignored. And that's >>>crazy, in fact. >>> >>>Bas. >> >>Then why didn't Zugzwang win IPCC99. It is not a bad program at all. >>In tests it completely annihilated the commercial programs they tested >>against. >> >>Zugzwang was at like 512 alpha processors and getting millions of nodes >>a second. I can't even remember how much, but zugzwang is already a slow >>program on a PC... >> >>...it was using (making use of message passing and thereby losing many >>factors of speed but it is worth it) global hashtable and was having more >>Mhz and bigger hashtables than anyone else. >> >>This though the 17 ply searching Cilkchess at like 256 (or 500?) >>sun processors wasn't searching undeep either. Yet it lost chanceless from >>8 ply searching Lambchop. >> >>How do you explain that? > >Yes, I expected this. > >a) The probability that the "best" program wins a tournament is far smaller then >you would expect. We once did some math and simulation, the shocking conclusion >was that the probability that the best program wins the tournament was only 50% >or something near that. > >b) CilkChess is a bad program. If you practically only do piece square then even >17 ply won't help you. > >The server or the SSDF gives better data (more) to draw conclusions from. Both >indicate that hardware is an enourmous factor. > >Best regards, >Bas. The ssdf does not say that hardware is an enourmous factor A1200 against K6-450 is more than2 times faster and Crafty on A1200 is not better than the best programs on K6-450. If your program is really better than GambitTiger when the hardware difference is only 2:1 then you may do it a commercial program. Uri
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.