Author: Uri Blass
Date: 01:31:54 01/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2002 at 18:54:20, Bas Hamstra wrote: >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. I predict 59-41 for the twice faster hardware that means 72 elo difference. 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.