Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:07:44 12/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2003 at 15:53:02, James T. Walker wrote: >On December 17, 2003 at 13:20:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 17, 2003 at 13:09:57, Slater Wold wrote: >> >>>On December 17, 2003 at 10:41:24, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On December 17, 2003 at 10:23:26, Matthew Hull wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 17, 2003 at 10:21:58, Slater Wold wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On December 17, 2003 at 09:35:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On December 17, 2003 at 09:05:55, Slater Wold wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I guess I will be running the 100:1 NPS challenge. Here's the info: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I will use any books.bin & bookc.bin that Bob asks me to. The book.bin will be >>>>>>>>created from enormous.pgn. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>My suggestion is to use book.bin, bookc.bin and books.bin from my ftp >>>>>>>machine. book.bin has no learning data so it will start off in the best >>>>>>>possible way. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>remove position.bin before game 1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>And, as I suggested previously, if, after a program leaves book, it is >>>>>>>in an obviously won or lost position, the game gets aborted and the next >>>>>>>one started. There is no place for "book kills" when the goal is a time >>>>>>>handicap match. >>>>>> >>>>>>Agreed. The only loss Crafty has suffered in the Rebel match was a book loss. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>BTW, what were the results of that match? >>>> >>>>3.5-1.5 for crafty >>>> >>>>see http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?336433 >>>> >>>>Note that the match is not very interesting for me because it is an open >>>>question if Crafty is better than rebel on equal hardware and in WBEC Crafty has >>>>13/24 when Rebel has only 10/24 >>> >>>There is no doubt in my mind Rebel is better than Crafty on equal hardware. And >>>I've played, oh, about 5,000 games with Rebel. >> >>I would take that wager. We _both_ use quad opterons. >> >>:) >> >>Isn't that "equal" by any reasonable definition? :) >> >> >>> >>>How much better is questionable, but it's obviously not 8x. ;) >>> >>>>The more interesting question is if Rebel is able to get better result than >>>>Crafty in the premier division. >>>> >>>>Uri > >;) They are not running on "equal" hardware if one is using 4 cpus and the >other is using only one cpu. I have several hundred blitz games of Crafty 19.7 >vs Rebel 12 on 2 XP2400+ machines/auto232. I call that equal hardware. In that >case Rebel has a slight advantage on Crafty of maybe 30-40 Elo. (According to >the few hundred games so far). >Jim That is a bad definition of "equal hardware". IE if two programs run on a PIV 3.06ghz processor, but one uses SSE and the other doesn't, is _that_ also not equal? Or one uses hyper-threading and the other doesn't? "equal hardware" means "platforms are identical". What a program gets out of those equal platforms is another matter. It takes effort to use that "extra stuff". I played a couple of challenge matches years ago when someone would say "Hey, you are using a Cray, if I had something that fast, I could play equal to or better than you." I had them send me their code, I compiled and we played on the same machine, no pondering, one cpu each. What they overlooked was that I had invested a lot of work getting the vector hardware to help me. They hadn't. So on "equal hardware" I was 20x faster than they were and the match was not that pretty. Doing a parallel search takes time. Does it seem reasonable that my opponent uses an extra year to improve his evaluation, while I use an extra year to get a good parallel search done, then we say "your parallel search is an unfair adevantage?" It's a different way of thinking about it when you think about it. Those extra CPUs don't just magically make the program faster without a _lot_ of design effort and programming work.
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.