Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 12:55:44 10/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 22, 2002 at 05:57:23, Brian Katz wrote:
>On October 22, 2002 at 04:52:07, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>On October 22, 2002 at 03:30:12, Stefan Zipproth wrote:
>>
>>>On October 21, 2002 at 07:53:53, Brian Katz wrote:
>>>
>>>>On October 21, 2002 at 07:40:54, Kurt Utzinger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It is well known that Deep Fritz 7 needs fast hardware to play at full strength.
>>>>>And in this respect your P_II/350 MHz is indeed too slow and any comparison with
>>>>>Fritz7 only a waste of time.
>>>>>Kurt
>>>>
>>>>Thank you Kurt
>>>>That is the answer I was looking for. I suspected that that might be the case.
>>>>Thank you and Uri for your replies.
>>>>Much appreciated.
>
>
>>>>Brian
>>>
>>>... no, that's not the answer. 8 games say nothing. Like it was said before, try
>>>tossing a coin 8 times. Both sides have the same "winning" chances, but you will
>>>easiliy get results like 5-3. To measure the difference between these two
>>>engines significantly, you would need to play thousands (!) of games,
>>>independend from time controls. This is simple math, but unfortunately no one
>>>seems to believe it.
>>>
>>>Just use ELOstat - or play another 8 :-)
>>>
>>>Stefan
>>
>>8 games do not prove which program is better but they may suggest some
>>conjectures.
>>
>>It is a waste of time to play some thousands of games instead of checking the
>>number of nodes of Fritz at slow hardware and fast hardware to find out if Deep
>>Fritz7 does not earn more from fast hardware.
>>
>>I have not both programs so I cannot do the comparison on fast hardware.
>>The poster gave some information about the number of nodes in his slow hardware.
>>
>>Uri
>
>Hello again URI
>
>Please tell me why all these other posters think that I am only basing my
>findings on 8 games. I have run many many tournaments with all different time
>controls and hash settings. A good number of short tournaments,( approx. 20)and
>quite a few long 20 game matches. I have also had quite a few 20 round
>tournaments with many chess engines, not only DF7 vs F7 I have had Deep-Fritz
>which is (based on Fritz6) come out ahead of DF7.
>The simple fact of the matter is that DF7 does not perform as well on my
>computer as Fritz 7.
My deepest feelings here go to Frans.
I feel exactly the same when I read this as when I read that "Chess Tiger 15
does not perform as well as Chess Tiger 14 on my computer".
DF7 is definitely stronger than F7, and CT15 is definitely stronger than CT14.
But well... If you do not FEEL that it is the case, what can we do?
Christophe
>This is not based on just engine tournaments, this is also based on the play on
>my computer account on ICC. I find DF7 struggling through every game. This is no
>longer a coincidence.
>I know that 8 games as well as anybody do not mean anything. I have had engines
>matches where an engine wins the first 4 games in a row in a ten game match only
>to lose the match in the end.
>I know I believe it was Bob Hyatt who said that you need at least 700 games
>between engines to get an accurate picture.
>
>I am just reporting what I have found thus far.
>I agree that this must be a hardware problem.
>I don't think I need 700 games when DF7 is losing almost every tournament I have
>run. It had won a few.
>DF7 on my computer, clearly does not reflect what Chessbase boasts in relation
>to DF7's increased positional knowledge and endgame knowledge and increased
>playing strength over Fritz 7 when used on only a single processor.
>
>So please, who ever replies to this post. MY findings are not based on only 8
>games, they are based on many. At least 200-300 games.
>What I found odd in the last tournament I ran is the extremely high hash table
>settings for Fritz 7. I thought that this would handicap Fritz 7 but it still
>performed better anyway.
>
>Brian Katz
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.