Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:04:29 09/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 2002 at 18:01:11, Uri Blass wrote: >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 Note that my experience is based only on games with no pondering and it is possible that things are different with pondering(I do not know). Uri
This page took 0.02 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.