Author: Tony Werten
Date: 11:00:50 01/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
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! Not really. If you hash a lot of stuff (pawns, kingpawns, eval, sliderseval etc) as I do in XiniX you will see the searchspeed go up while you're searching. It shouldn't take a minute to come to full speed though. Tony > >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
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.