Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 15:54:20 01/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 07, 2002 at 14:52:49, Uri Blass wrote: >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 Well, sorry I picked a program from you list :-) And yes, a result 8-2 with one program playing itsself at 2:1 is quite possible, why do you say that? The ELO formula is nice, but A will see everything that B does, and MORE. Let's say we take the latest Fritz and play 100 5/0 games. Now, with the ELO formula in the back of our heads, what do you predict? 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.