Author: martin fierz
Date: 16:53:52 09/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 2002 at 19:18:20, Matthew Hull wrote: >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. that's interesting! wasn't berliner's hitech/lotech experiment trying to find exactly this behavior, but it failed? i made a similar experiment with my checkers program, but the "dumb" version of cake with a deeper search consistently beat the "intelligent version" with a shallower search over a wide range of search depths. aloha martin 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.