Author: Jorge Pichard
Date: 07:10:26 01/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 2002 at 09:46:30, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 13, 2002 at 08:41:57, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On January 13, 2002 at 08:29:35, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On January 13, 2002 at 08:07:49, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>> >>>>On January 13, 2002 at 07:05:16, Tina Long wrote: >>>> >>>>>Gigantic hash tables for very quick time limit didn't suit Gandalf? >>>> >>>>I don't think so. The Athlon can clear 200M in a split second, and >>>>it plays 1 0 games fine with this setting. >>>> >>>>>Gandalf is more knowledge based so GambitTigger looked a lot deeper because of >>>>>the quick time limit? >>>> >>>>Mm. Perhaps. Gandalf doesn't search very deeply, Tiger does. This won't >>>>change when playing slower games. Gandalf will search a ply deeper, but >>>>so will Tiger (and perhaps two). >>>> >>>>>The extra Tablebases helped GT? >>>> >>>>There's no practical advantage to using 6 man >>>>tablebases. (according to Robert) >>>> >>>>>Sample size too small? >>>> >>>>24 games isn't much, but it's still a huge score difference, >>>>enough to be significant. I'll plug the result into elostat >>>>and see what comes out. >>>> >>>>>Did you notice any explaining factors or do you think this is a fair comparison >>>>>of strength? >>>> >>>>I think it's fair comparison, the hardware was about equal and both were playing >>>>at full strength. If there is something wrong with my setup >>>>(I was operating Gandalf), then I honestly wouldn't know what is was. >>>> >>>>>Apriori I would have expected about 8-6-10 or thereabouts. >>>> >>>>Hmm. I'm disappointed with Gandalf so far. I used to run Fritz 7 on the same >>>>account and with Gandalf the rating has dropped about 70-100 points! >>>> >>>>It doesn't seem to be a real top program to me. I wonder what the SSDF result >>>>will be. >>>> >>>>-- >>>>GCP >>> >>>I will try another possible theory(I do not have gandalf5 so I cannot check it) >>> >>>Maybe gandalf need time to get used to big hash tables for some reason. >>> >>>The fact that it does not lose on time even on 1 0 games does not contradict >>>this theory because it is possible that gandalf starts by searching 50 knodes >>>per second in the first seconds and only after a minute the number of nodes per >>>second becomes 300 knodes per second and the time that gandalf needs to get used >>>to big hash tables is bigger than the time that it needs to >>>get used to small hash tables. >> >>I have no idea why or how you think this is possible. It would make the >>chessprogram practically useless! >> >>It's wrong. I see it is by looking at the statistics window. Gandalf does >>about 300-400 (800 in some endgames) knps on my system, and that number is >>fairly constant. >> >>Moreover, also by observing the stats window, I do not have the impression >>that Gandalf clears it hashtables frequently, so I do not think they had >>anything to do with it. >> >>-- >>GCP > >I thought that it may be possible because I know that the nodes per second for >gandalf4.32h as a chessbase engine was not constant. > >I also know that it is possible even with Deep Fritz. >It never happens when I try to use 48 mbytes but for some reason it happens >sometimes when I try to use 64 mbytes. > >I do not know if it is because of other applications that the computer use at >the same time or because of windows2000 but it never happens in another >computer (p850 with windows98). > >The case with Deep Fritz is an extreme case and it may start with searching >less than 10 knode per second only to jump later to hundreds of knodes per >second > >In the end of this post there is an example when I told Deep Fritz 64 mbytes >hash > >Can you explain me what happen and what is the reason that Fritz's nodes per >second jumped? >I did not run new applications during the run of Fritz so it is logical to >expect that the number of nodes per second will be constant but it does not >happen. > >Note that with p850(windows98) I have not similiar problems but I still found >that the number of nodes per second of Gandalf was not constant and in this case >it was a special problem of gandalf4.32 as a chessbase engine. > > > >Sphinx Dominator - MChess 486 >[D] r5k1/Bp3p1p/5bp1/1N3b2/2r1p1n1/6P1/P3PPBP/R2R2K1 w - - 0 1 > >Analysis by Deep Fritz: > >21.Bd4 Rc2 22.Bxf6 > ³ (-0.50) Depth: 2/7 00:00:00 >21.Bd4 Rc2 22.Bxf6 > ³ (-0.50) Depth: 2/7 00:00:00 >21.Bd4 Rc2 22.Bxf6 > ³ (-0.50) Depth: 2/7 00:00:00 >21.Bd4 Rc2 22.Bxf6 > ³ (-0.50) Depth: 2/7 00:00:00 >21.Bd4 Rc2 22.Bxf6 > ³ (-0.50) Depth: 2/7 00:00:00 >21.Rac1! > ³ (-0.47) Depth: 2/10 00:00:00 >21.Rac1! Rxc1 > ³ (-0.44) Depth: 2/10 00:00:00 >21.Rac1 Rxc1 22.Rxc1 b6 23.Bxb6 > ³ (-0.62) Depth: 3/13 00:00:00 >21.Bd4! > ³ (-0.59) Depth: 3/13 00:00:00 1kN >21.Bd4! Rc2 > ³ (-0.50) Depth: 3/17 00:00:00 1kN >21.Bd4 Rc2 22.h3 Ne5 > ³ (-0.44) Depth: 4/13 00:00:00 2kN >21.Bd4 Rc2 22.h3 Ne5 23.g4 > ³ (-0.50) Depth: 5/17 00:00:01 10kN >21.Bd4 Rc2 22.h3 Ne5 23.g4 Be6 24.Bxe4 > = (-0.22) Depth: 6/19 00:00:04 30kN >21.Bd4 Rc2 22.h3 Ne5 23.g4 Be6 24.Bxe4 Rxe2 > = (-0.22) Depth: 7/21 00:00:10 101kN >21.Bd4 Ne5 22.h3 h5 23.Kh2 Ra6 24.f3 exf3 25.exf3 > = (-0.12) Depth: 8/25 00:00:21 529kN >21.Bd4 Ne5 22.f4 Ng4 23.Bxf6 Nxf6 24.Nd4 h5 25.Nxf5 gxf5 26.Kf1 > = (-0.06) Depth: 9/26 00:00:23 2085kN >21.Bd4 Ra5 22.Bxf6 Nxf6 23.Nd4 h6 24.Nxf5 Rxf5 25.Rab1 Ra5 26.Rb6 Kg7 > = (-0.06) Depth: 10/27 00:00:27 4822kN > >(Blass, Tel-aviv 13.01.2002) > > >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.