Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 08:32:42 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. Your problem is tactical sufficiency. With Tao you finally get above or close to tactical barrier now, you didn't in the past. Now that kicks butt suddenly with some better tuned eval. If you can beat Tiger at 2x faster hardware at blitz, then you should get a fast machine and you will win world title blitz then. Oh wait. Perhaps tiger plays with random book at internet?
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.