Author: Don Dailey
Date: 08:43:09 07/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 12, 1998 at 05:45:36, Howard Exner wrote: >On July 11, 1998 at 16:31:41, Mark Young wrote: > >>On July 11, 1998 at 14:07:11, Howard Exner wrote: > >Other lines removed ... > >>>Some people tweak the bios settings on their motherboards (ram timings >>>as one example) which will make some machines different despite identical >>>processors. Typically a computer will have the original bios settings set >>>conservatively. >>> >>>I did find the original K6-233 timings on Ed's page were way off. I emailed him >>>what my machine found and he made the correction on his page. The original time >>>for the K6-233 was the time when the problem was solved (not the time Ed >>>wanted - the time when the ply was completed) so in this example it was >>>an error in following the directions for the test. >> >>That makes sense. I know you can tweak the bios settings but not by 20 to 30 >>percent in speed. I think this might be the cause of some other timing errors he >>has posted. If I run the test till rebel finds just the solution, the times >>matches up much better on the computers I have at home. > >The idea of waiting until the ply is complete may escape some >testers who normally just record the time to solution. >When Rebel 10 is released it might be a thought to revamp this computer >processor speed chart to include Rebel 10 and Decade 2.0, replacing Rebel 8 >and Decade 1.0. >I always enjoy these charts on how different processors compare on applications, >especially chess programs. Come to think of it, I've always been a glutton for >all kinds of Sports stats (I guess these computer charts are the same for me), >the funniest coming from the world of baseball... ie: so and so's batting >average on a full moon when Grandma's laundry is drying on the clothesline. Waiting for a ply to complete is how we do time tests on tactical positions too. We wait for the solution first, then for the iteration to complete. As far as I know, this was Larry Kaufman's idea. He noticed that the results of this method are much more consistant when comparing algorithm changes and one program against another. I don't view it as a major thing, just a slightly better way of doing things because it is more accurate. - Don
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.