Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:52:49 01/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 07, 2002 at 14:42:35, Bas Hamstra wrote: >On January 07, 2002 at 12:06:24, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On January 07, 2002 at 11:44:44, Bas Hamstra wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>By your definition most of the programs >>are too crappy programs >> >>see http://home.hccnet.nl/leo.dijksman/index.html >> >>The programs in the second devision and lower devisions are >>most of the programs and I expect all of them to lose a match >>of 10 games against Tiger when the hardware difference is 2:1 >>against Tiger. >> >>I expect even most of the programs in the first devision >>that includes Crafty to lose a match against Tiger >>in the same conditions. >> >>Uri > >I have seen the programs. Tell me why you expect that, maybe we can solve the >problem. Are you willing to take a bet? My money is on YACE bigtime. Let's say >8-2 for YACE if the books are about equal. > >Bas. > >Bas. 8-2 for yace is not ralistic. Even if you take the same program against itself on 2 times slower hardware you are not going to get an average result of 8-2 7.5-2.5 is 200 elo difference and being 2 times faster gives only 70 elo advantage. Uri Note that yace is a strong program
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.