Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:56:00 01/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
I had posted this, but somehow it failed. I am redoing it as best I can. My overall impression was "Crafty played just fine" in general. It had book problems, but no instant book wins or book losses, just some not-so-good positions it was able to overcome. The dual xeon 2.8 was pretty fast. Crafty searched somewhere around 2.5M nodes per second, typically, and was generally searching 13-14 plies deep in the middlegame, sometimes even deeper. Overall the hyper-threading and xeon stuff worked as advertised and produced no problems or quirks. Speed helps, but it isn't yet absolute, as the game vs Ferret shows. But it certainly helps, although a dual 2.8 is not exactly blazingly fast compared to some machines like the quad 2.0 machine from Dell, not to mention the itanium2 (mckinley) boxes that are around. But it was "sufficient" at the time, of course. :) I went into the event not thinking that there were any "forced losses" but also there would be no "easy wins" either. And that turned out to be true. I don't think there was an engine present that I could not beat a reasonable number of games. IE I would be happy to play anybody there with the full expectation that I could win as many as I would lose, if not better... I would have liked to have won all 9 rounds. I could have easily done much worse. Overall, I was happy and have ideas for future changes to make it better, which is the most important point probably... To those that came, we had a good time. To those that didn't, you missed a good time.
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.