Author: Uri Blass
Date: 12:24:05 10/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 2003 at 14:37:33, Christophe Theron wrote: >On October 16, 2003 at 13:16:09, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On October 16, 2003 at 12:58:03, Thorsten Czub wrote: >> >>>On October 15, 2003 at 15:01:40, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>I can expect significant difference after some hundreds of games between every >>>>program and itself with clearly faster cpu unless the program has significant >>>>bug and I do not know of significant bug of Tiger. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>ONE significant "Bug" in Tiger is IMO that is installs itself with 48 KB hash. >>>Most people look shallow and think : 48 MB. >>> >>>And don't increase the Hash size. >>> >>>if you don't use much hash, the pure mhz increase will not bring much progress >>>IMO. >> >>If the tiger on the faster hardware installed with less hash then it can explain >>the results. >> >>I still expect the same tiger to perform better on the faster hardware if it get >>the same hash on both hardwares. >> >>Uri > > > >Naturally. > >Oh, and anyway the SSDF data shows this clearly. > >But why are we even talking about it? > > > > Christophe The ssdf does not show that tiger with 48 kb hash is better on faster hardware so I cannot use the ssdf results to prove that thorsten is wrong because thorsten talked about a case that you do not use much hash. Note that thorsten's post was productive. Thorsten did not suggest that the tiger of the faster hardware used less hash but thanks to his post I thought about that possibility as a logical explanation for the observation that started this thread that tiger on the fast hardware drew a long match against tiger on clearly slower hardware. 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.