Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:29:12 01/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2003 at 20:56:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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 think that the only candidate to beat crafty out of the participants in a long number of games is ruffian. I see no participant except you who used 2.8 gh even on one processor when you used 2.8 gh with 2 processors so I guess that you had hardware advantage relative to Ruffian and Yace even if we ignore the fact that you used 2 processors. Uri
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.