Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 10:52:52 05/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 28, 2002 at 13:40:43, Sandi Ordinario wrote: >On May 28, 2002 at 13:25:45, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>On May 28, 2002 at 13:16:38, Sandi Ordinario wrote: >> >>>On May 28, 2002 at 13:06:01, Terry McCracken wrote: >>> >>>>On May 28, 2002 at 12:54:47, Sandi Ordinario wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 28, 2002 at 12:52:40, Sandi Ordinario wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 28, 2002 at 12:50:30, Terry McCracken wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On May 28, 2002 at 12:00:56, Sandi Ordinario wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On May 28, 2002 at 11:53:55, Jorge wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On May 28, 2002 at 11:00:51, Sandi Ordinario wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On May 28, 2002 at 09:45:17, Terry McCracken wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On May 28, 2002 at 09:19:30, Sandi Ordinario wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Hi Mustafa et al, >>>>>>>>>>>>Last week I wrote about CM on Pentium 3 beating Fritz on Pentium 4 whether >>>>>>>>>>>>playing White or Black. I optimized Book options, reduced Hash to 2MB and turned >>>>>>>>>>>>off all options except notation for Fritz. Both software was on 10 sec/move. If >>>>>>>>>>>>I swapped them on the computers, CM8K run on Pentium 4 would beat Fritz on less >>>>>>>>>>>>than 40 moves very brilliantly (sacrifices and all). I don't know what to do. I >>>>>>>>>>>>hope it is not all hype for Fritz. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Then I tried 20sec/move same settings but I raised Fritz's Hash to 4MB on the >>>>>>>>>>>>Pentium 4 as white. It was able to draw for the first time CM8000 after 80 >>>>>>>>>>>>moves. Perhaps Fritz is better with more thinking time, that is with higher Hash >>>>>>>>>>>>setting. What do you think? I think you're trolling! >>>>>>>>>>>>Sandi >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>http://w1.859.telia.com/%7Eu85924109/ssdf/list.htm >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>TM >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Hi TM >>>>>>>>>>I looked at the results of the computer tournament and immediately I noticed >>>>>>>>>>that the top dozen or so were running on AMD Athlon at 1.2GHz but CM and all the >>>>>>>>>>rest of the runner-ups were on 450MHz. This is unfair. Why does not someone run >>>>>>>>>>them at the same computer type and speed like I am doing? Perhaps they will get >>>>>>>>>>a surprise of their life. >>>>>>>>>>Sandi >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I agree! If this is the case, other variables should be the same or at least as >>>>>>>>>close as the same as possible. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>regards, >>>>>>>>>jorge >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Hi Jorge! >>>>>>>>I am glad you agree with my observations. Perhaps computer software performance >>>>>>>>should be better regulated. Thanks for your view. >>>>>>>>Sandi >>>>>>> >>>>>>>To both of you, SSDF does a Great Job, now look at the list with the top >>>>>>>software running on K6-2 450Mgh 128MB RAM hardware. It is a fair and well >>>>>>>regulated. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>10 Deep Fritz 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2652 23 -23 945 61% 2570 >>>>>>>11 Gandalf 5.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2646 29 -28 595 57% 2594 >>>>>>>12 Gandalf 5.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2642 49 -50 202 46% 2673 >>>>>>>13 Gambit Tiger 2.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2640 30 -29 592 66% 2521 >>>>>>>14 Fritz 7.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2631 45 -44 250 56% 2592 >>>>>>>14 Junior 7.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2631 27 -26 739 67% 2507 >>>>>>>16 Chess Tiger 14.0 CB 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2630 28 -27 652 62% 2541 >>>>>>>16 Shredder 6.0 UCI 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2630 65 -62 124 57% 2578 >>>>>>>18 Fritz 6.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2623 23 -22 1014 63% 2529 >>>>>>>19 Crafty 18.12/CB 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2617 31 -30 519 53% 2595 >>>>>>>20 Shredder 5.32 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2606 31 -30 545 62% 2521 >>>>>>>21 Junior 6.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2588 18 -18 1483 58% 2533 >>>>>>>22 Chess Tiger 12.0 DOS 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2587 22 -22 1021 55% 2551 >>>>>>>23 Shredder 5.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2586 20 -20 1176 56% 2544 >>>>>>>24 Rebel Century 4.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2571 59 -61 138 44% 2612 >>>>>>>25 Shredder 4.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2568 23 -22 986 58% 2508 >>>>>>>26 Nimzo 8.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2554 24 -24 846 53% 2536 >>>>>>>27 Fritz 5.32 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2553 24 -23 890 55% 2514 >>>>>>>28 Nimzo 7.32 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2551 21 -21 1070 54% 2520 >>>>>>>29 Junior 5.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2537 22 -22 996 52% 2520 >>>>>>>30 Gandalf 5.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2532 73 -68 102 60% 2458 >>>>>>>31 Gandalf 4.32f 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2531 28 -28 627 51% 2524 >>>>>>>32 Hiarcs 7.32 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2527 21 -21 1131 47% 2546 >>>>>>>33 Hiarcs 7.01 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2521 30 -31 525 43% 2573 >>>>>>>34 SOS 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2520 19 -19 1307 47% 2539 >>>>>>>35 Gandalf 4.32h 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2518 36 -36 378 53% 2498 >>>>>>>36 Rebel Century 3.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2517 30 -30 546 49% 2523 >>>>>>>37 Chessmaster 8000 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2516 44 -45 251 45% 2549 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>http://w1.859.telia.com/%7Eu85924109/ssdf/list.htm >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Terry >>>>> >>>>>Please refer to my message to Pavel. One end of the spectrum does not provide a >>>>>good conclusion for anyone. CM8000 should be run on the same hardware as the >>>>>winner and compared with the rest. This should be more statistically significant >>>>>unless I'm off my rocker! >>>>>Sandi >>>> >>>>See my response to you after repling to Pavel. >>>> >>>>Heck I'll repost it. >>>> >>>>No, relative hardware will give relative results. Do you think CM8K magically >>>>performs better on the a 1.2Ghz machine, relative to it's peers? There is only >>>>a speed up of approx. 3x on the 1.2 Ghz. The ratings you see correspond >>>>accordingly. >>>>That's not "Scientific" and I don't know exactly what you're doing, but >>>>regardless of that your sample size is also far to small. >>>> >>>>Terry >>> >>>And so does the tournament result based on one encounter! Sample size is too >>>small, as you say. Talking about relative results. If CM8000 were run on the >>>same hardware as the winners and its results were as relative as on the lower >>>end of the spectrum among peers, you could really convince me. I wrote Thoralf >>>of this and I haven't gotten his reply yet. Perhaps you could do a >>>correspondence type of match with your Fritz6 run with Athlon (supposedly better >>>than Pentium) and I will run CM on the Pentium 4. We could alternate colors >>>until I am convinced that my setup is a weird one or my Fritz software is bad. >>>Do not think I am praising CM8000 by any means, I want to prove that what the >>>world knows is universal because I am not seeing this on my setup and I am no >>>programmer by any stretch of the imagination. >>> >>>-Sandi >>>Sandi >> >>You said "I want to prove what the world knows is universal." >> >>What? That CM8K is Best? Or that running on the Faster Hardware is the only Fair >>Choice? >> >>Or Both? >> >>Do you really belive SSDF is doing a Shoddy Job? >> >>TM > >I think we are going off on a tangent in your arguments. You are making me claim >what I have not: that CM8K is the best or SSDFis doing a shoddy job, to which I >am saying I have not said this or the faster speed is the only determining >factor. I want to prove to myself, not necessarily the world that "all things >being equal" the best software should come up on top which is in line with your >"relative performance agrument." But I am not convinced unless we examine the >upper spectrum also. > >This is getting to be personal, so let us just play that correspondence game I >proposed not to prove you are right but I repeat to prove that my setup is weird >or my Fritz is a bad one. I am myself assuming that the regular Fritz software >is superior to the CM8000 although this is not what I am seeing with my present >set-up. So how about it? My email is lightsalt@attbi.com if you care to >accomodate my proposal of a correspondence-type game. > >Sandi No, I don't have the hardware sorry. If you want contact the SSDF and ask why they don't test CMK8 on the top hardware. It's them you appear to have the problem with. Talk to them. It can't hurt. Terry
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.