Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 08:44:44 01/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 07, 2002 at 10:29:12, Uri Blass wrote: >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 Are you serious? When has there EVER been a program in the top-3 that was not on the fastest chip? >A1200 against K6-450 is more than2 times faster and >Crafty on A1200 is not better than the best programs What does this prove other than that it is hard to overcome a factor 2? It hardly occurs! Clearly a BIG factor... >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. On 2 to 1 hardware advantage I fear not a single program. But that's easy to say because that holds for everyone with a not too crappy program. Better at 2:1? I don't know, it would certainly be an interesting experiment to test it. Bas.
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.