Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:03:02 10/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 22, 2002 at 15:55:44, Christophe Theron wrote: >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 It is also possible that Deep Fritz 7 is better on multiple-cpu machines only. IE the improvements might have slowed it down a bit on one cpu, but made the parallel search more efficient. If it isn't being used on a multiprocessor, there is little reason to own a "deep" program, generally...
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.