Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:33:38 07/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2003 at 16:32:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 14, 2003 at 14:56:36, Matthew Hull wrote: > >>On July 14, 2003 at 14:27:12, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On July 14, 2003 at 13:38:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On July 14, 2003 at 03:27:27, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 14, 2003 at 00:00:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 13, 2003 at 15:03:38, Sune Fischer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On July 13, 2003 at 12:42:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I (and many others) believe that the Elo system works well for players >>>>>>>>that are pretty close in rating. It seems to work less well (in the case >>>>>>>>of computers) for players that are significantly separated in ratings. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I agree mostly, not sure why it should be different for computers though. >>>>>> >>>>>>I'm not either. But if you watch a 2000 computer play a 2600 computer, it >>>>>>_seems_ to me that the 2000 computer wins more games than it should. Or at >>>>>>least draws more than it should. I certainly can't prove this however, but >>>>>>experience seems to (at least in my case) support this conclusion. >>>>> >>>>>What experience? >>>> >>>>On servers. >>>> >>>>At a couple of dozen ACM and WCCC and WMCCC events. >>>> >>>>on matches played here locally during testing. >>>> >>>>Etc. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>If you use games on chess servers then it is possible that the 2000 computer >>>>>simply updated the software but the result are still not written in the rating >>>>>list so this is different experience than ssdf. >>>>> >>>>>If you are talking about static programs than based on my memory there was a >>>>>version of cray blitz that beated Genius1 in every game. >>>> >>>>With a big hardware advantage. But It didn't win every game even though >>>>it certainly should have. I don't remember the specifics now, but I played >>>>something like 20 games and hit two or three draws. That was suggesting >>>>a difference of 400+ rating points. The real difference was far greater. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Cray blitz had a big hardware difference but I do not think that the difference >>>>>was more than 600 elo. >>>> >>>>At that point in time, we were talking about 500K nodes per second for >>>>Cray Blitz vs genius on a 486/33, if I recall the hardware. The difference >>>>was probably way more than 600 elo, based on human vs computer games against >>>>both. >>> >>>It is possible that Genius has some weakness that humans could take advantage of >>>it. >>> >>>Based on the ssdf rating list we have difference of less than 500 elo between >>>Crafty(A1200) and Genius1(486/33 mhz). >>> >>>Crafty 18.12/CB 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2614 >>>Chess Genius 1.0 486/33 MHz 2140 >>> >>>The difference is less than 500 ssdf elo and 500K nodes per second for cray >>>blitz suggest that it was not better than Crafty on A1200 in the games that you >>>played. >> >>Is this not the same bad NPS assumption that VD makes all the time? A CB node >>is not a crafty node. >> >>Matt > >I mentioned that to Uri in my response to him. On a vector machine, you can do >things that are impossibly expensive on a micro. It is not easy to vectorize a >search, so the search doesn't go faster, but it is certainly possible to >vectorize various parts of the engine so that they go like blazes, such as in >move generation, attack detection, but most importantly, in static evaluation. > >Of course, you have to either know how to use vector hardware, or be willing >to learn, neither of which fits Vincent and his many "impossible" comments. > >> >> >>> >>>I remember that latest Cray blitz could search 7M nodes per second but I >>>understood also that you limited Cray blitz >>>in the games against Genius1 so 500K nodes per second seems logical. >>> >>>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.