Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: A Possible Experiment to test Dr Hyatts 100X factor

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 15:01:11 09/06/02

Go up one level in this thread


On September 06, 2002 at 17:32:47, Matthew Hull wrote:

>On September 06, 2002 at 16:13:40, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On September 06, 2002 at 16:04:58, ALI MIRAFZALI wrote:
>>
>>>From the Threads here I am assuming that professor Hyatt beleives that 100X
>>>factor in speed (NPS) would be too much to overcome with software improvement
>>>factor.I am proposing the following possible match:Time control 40/2 6
>>>games : GNU chess 5.04 on a pentium 4 at 2.4 Gigahertz vs Chessmaster2 original
>>>playstation (33 Mhz).This is actually a 73 factor in terms of processor speed
>>>which is not 100 but close.On the original playstation Chessmaster2 gets about
>>>1100 Nps.
>>
>>
>>Why gnuchess?  I don't know much about it, and it might be perfectly ok.
>>
>>But you are also misinterpreting what I said.  I did say that a factor of
>>100x, between programs that are "close" is overwhelming.  Obviously a bad
>>program at 100X will be better, but it might not be much better.
>>
>>In any case, give your test a go and see what happens first...
>
>I'm running a test now with gnuchess (900mhz Duron) versus Crafty18.15 (90mhz
>Pentium).  Gnuchess runs 16x faster on the Duron than the P90.  At 40/30min
>minutes and after 36 games, gnuchess is 52% against crafty (not too impressive
>for gnuchess).  The lower the time control, the better gnuchess does, of course.
> I have lots more data at home on this test, as well as an equal hardware test.
>I'm trying to get at least 40 games in each category, including 40/120.
>
>Not sure if the test will prove useful, but I'm thinking that one can do this
>experiment with any two engines and derive a function with which to calculate
>the speed advantage needed to reach parity/superiority by the weaker engine,
>qualitative factors aside.

Thanks for your tests.

I am interested to know how much games gnuchess lost on time because based on my
experience gnuchess lose minority of it's games on time at x minute/y moves.

It may be more interesting to use fisher time control because I believe that gnu
chess does not lose on time at fisher time control.

I still expect gnu chess to lose at slow time control inspite of the hardware
advantage even at fisher time control like 150 minute per game+25 second per
move but it is only a guess.

I suggest that you use 6+1,30+5,150+25 as your 3 categories of time control.

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.