Author: pavel
Date: 12:26:17 06/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2002 at 14:51:46, Robert Henry Durrett wrote: >On June 13, 2002 at 13:32:20, Russell Reagan wrote: > >>On June 13, 2002 at 12:54:16, Robert Henry Durrett wrote: >> >>>I interpret this to imply that "everybody does it." >>> >>>That leaves the question: How much higher are the SSDF ratings than they would >>>have been if commercial versions [Assumed to be not optimized for one specific >>>computer] were used? >>> >>>Not really asking about books. More interested in knowing how much difference >>>optimization for a specific computer would make. >>> >>>Bob D. >> >>Not much. You're talking about a very small gain in speed. The top programs are >>already probably optimized out the wazoo, and the small gain that optimizing for >>a particular processor will bring translates to even smaller gains in ELO. If >>you get a few more NPS, then maybe you'll find a "better" (or at least >>different) move maybe once during the game, and that's probably not going to >>translate into turning a loss into a draw or turning a draw into a win, IMO. >> >>Russell > >Well, I was prompted to think about this topic by the statement: "Hiarcs 8 was >NOT made for slow computer such as an AMD 450 Mhz as the SSDF decided to test it >against Nimzo 8." made in another thread. > >I realize that big programs require big computers. That is clear. > >But if all the chess engines were to be tested on the same computers, you would >have thought that all of the chess engine developers would have optimized their >programs for the computers they were to run on. This includes "paring down" a >big program if it will have to run on a "small" computer. That's what got me to >thinking, anyway. I couldn't understand how Hiarcs 8 had been zapped. > >For whatever that's worth. > >Bob D. > >Bob D. SSDF tests allmost all TOP programs in both type of processors 450mhz and 1200mhz, the idea is to see how much strength a program gets from faster processor. It has been done AFAIK with fritz7, crafty, junior7, chesstiger14, just to name a few and almost most other top programs. as you can see... Rating + - Games Won Av.opp 1 Fritz 7.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2730 33 -31 494 64% 2626 2 Chess Tiger 14.0 CB 256MB Athlon 1200 2722 33 -32 477 63% 2626 3 Gambit Tiger 2.0 256MB Athlon 1200 2720 34 -33 441 62% 2635 4 Deep Fritz 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2714 33 -32 482 63% 2623 5 Shredder 6.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2713 35 -34 432 64% 2611 6 Junior 7.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2693 31 -31 511 57% 2641 7 Rebel Century 4.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2684 34 -32 470 64% 2585 8 Shredder 5.32 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2670 31 -30 536 56% 2624 9 Gandalf 4.32h 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2653 34 -33 430 54% 2625 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 38 Goliath Light 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2507 24 -24 857 42% 2565 39 Crafty 17.07/CB 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2490 23 -23 912 47% 2513 40 Nimzo 99 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2485 22 -22 996 44% 2528 41 MChess Pro 8.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2478 25 -26 753 40% 2549 42 Genius 6.5 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2474 29 -29 565 48% 2487 http://w1.859.telia.com/~u85924109/ssdf/list.htm "Hiarcs 8 was NOT made for slow computer such as an AMD 450 Mhz as the SSDF decided to test it against Nimzo 8." so the statement is moot, when you know why they did, what they did. Also statements like Hiarcs 8 is better in long(er) time control than relatively short time control doesnt make sense to me. I dont think SSDF is the last thing on earth for all programmers. For instance Crafty & Junior (authors) are more interested in human competitions than in computer competitions. And its not the same. cheers, pavs
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.