Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 16:18:20 09/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 2002 at 18:04:29, Uri Blass wrote: >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 Pondering does not help the time problem. Also, weaker chess programs will perform better at shorter time controls, and worse at slow time controls.:-) Gnuchess results so far with a 16x speed advantage over Crafty on p90: 40/5 71% 40/10 53% 40/30 50% Of course, if Crafty were on the 900mhz and gnuchess were given a 16x time advantage, the numbers would be lower. The speed advantage buys you less at the greater depths I think. I will do that test as well perhaps. Regards,
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.