Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 04:10:18 03/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2003 at 06:55:34, Uri Blass wrote: >On March 06, 2003 at 06:38:15, Chessfun wrote: > >>On March 06, 2003 at 02:39:42, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On March 06, 2003 at 01:50:29, Mike Byrne wrote: >>> >>>>On March 06, 2003 at 01:01:32, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On March 05, 2003 at 22:37:56, Mike Byrne wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On March 05, 2003 at 22:24:45, bobby palacios wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On March 05, 2003 at 20:23:07, Mike Byrne wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On March 05, 2003 at 19:56:30, Mike Byrne wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Ruffian vs Crafty 19.03 "x", Blitz: Game /5 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Dual 1.8 Ghz Xeon >>>>>>>>>Ponder On >>>>>>>>>Unified Hiarcs Tourn book >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Crafty 19.03 "x" +62 -53 =69 52.45% 96.5/184 >>>>>>>>>Ruffian 1.0.1 +53 -62 =69 47.55% 87.5/184 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>This is clearly the best result a modified Crafty (for me) has ever obtained >>>>>>>>>against Ruffian at Game/5. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>This is the last game played - Ruffian has the advantage and lost it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Ruffian 1.0.1 - Crafty 19.03 'x' [B33] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>W=11.2 ply; 512kN/s; 959 TBAs >>>>>>>>B=10.9 ply; 748kN/s >>>>>>> >>>>>>>This is a bit strange. On my p4 2.47ghz, Ruffian generally outsearches Crafty >>>>>>>19.03 by about 100-200kn/s, but certain engines run better on certain machines, >>>>>>>so maybe this is expected. >>>>>> >>>>>>Since I compiled Crafty on my machine using profiled optimizations, it would be >>>>>>highly optimized for my machine. >>>>>> >>>>>>:)))))) >>>>> >>>>>I am surprised by the number of nodes of Ruffian. >>>>> >>>>>Even on my slow P850 Ruffian can show more than 512 Kn/seconds >>>>> >>>>>Here is some analysis of one of the position of the game by Ruffian. >>>>>depth=12 1/48(Rh5) +0.96 Rh5 Rc3 Qxc3 Qxh5 g4 Qg5 Qa3 h5 h3 Qh4 Qxd6 Qxh3 Qxa6 >>>>>hxg4 Qxb5 >>>>>Nodes: 34277608 NPS: 548266 >>>>>Time: 00:01:02.52 >>>>> >>>>>Why did Ruffian search only 512 knodes per second on 1.8Ghz? >>>>>Are you sure that Ruffian used 100% of the time of your second processor? >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>>Yes - I do checked that frequently to make sure no are problems. My p4 behaves >>>>more like a P3 1000(?guess) for many chess programs that are not optimized >>>>specifically for the P4. >>> >>>How much speed can programs earn from optimizing them for p4? >>> >>>Do you get more than 50% speed improvement from your optimizations? >>> >>>748 nps is almost 50% more than 512 nps and I read in this thread that a person >>>with pentium4 who did not do special optimizations said that Ruffian is faster >>>than crafty on p4. >>> >>>Uri >> >>His average NPS was 512 k/Ns, this don't mean on a given position he would get >>that. Plus you never posted the FEN for him to check. >> >>In this case Ruffian shows 959 TBAS, this itself slows down NPS in some cases by >>a factor of 6 or 7. So to simply say Ruffian only did 512 k/Ns and I can get >>more on my PC something is wrong, is itself wrong. >> >>Sarah. > >I did not say that I can get more average nps but >the position that I analyzed was a middls game position from the game(I did not >save it but I guess that there are not many positions from the game when the pv >make sense so it is probably possible to find out). > >I thought that in endgames the search is faster thanks to smaller number of >pieces(it is at least the case with movei). > >If tablebases make the program slower by a factor of 6 or 7 then something >is probably wrong with the program. > >I also thought that his 1.8gh should be at least twice faster than my p850 >(I was probably wrong in this thought). > >I thought that all this data probaly suggests that something may be wrong >in the game. > >Uri No there is nothing wrong - it is what it is - I have been doing this for 15 years.
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.