Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 16:01:26 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. You are correct. Gnuchess loses on time once in a while. I've been letting it paly on though. It usually steals no more than a second or two, which I don't think gives it enough advantage to color the overall result. > >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.