Author: Fred Wilson
Date: 21:46:04 01/21/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 21, 2004 at 15:57:21, Jasmine Baer wrote: >Nunn Test, Blitz:3' 0 Match 1 > > 12345678901234567890 >1 Fritz 8 ½1100½½1½10111011100 12.0/20 >2 Shredder 8 ½0011½½0½01000100011 8.0/20 > >All games on a Toshiba Laptop with Pentium 1.75 GHz processor. MS Excel, MS >Outlook, and Internet Explorer all running in the back ground. 256 MB RAM. > >3' + 0" >16 MB Hash >Access to Tablebases (3, 4, 5 piece) >Shredder 8 = Intelligent setting > > >Nunn Test, Blitz:3' 0 Match 2 > > 12345678901234567890 >1 Shredder 8 ½½01½0½010101½110111 11.5/20 >2 Fritz 8 ½½10½1½101010½001000 8.5/20 > >All games on a Toshiba Laptop with Pentium 1.75 GHz processor. MS Excel, MS >Outlook, and Internet Explorer all running in the back ground. 256 MB RAM. > >3' + 0" >16 MB Hash >Access to Tablebases (3, 4, 5 piece) >Shredder 8 = Aggressive setting > >If I do about 200 more of these matches, maybe they will have increased >statistical significance. Perhaps you are using hash table settings that are too small. Also, does your computer have 5 piece tablebases installed? I suspect the newer programs require more resources to be efficient, as the trend seems to be swapping program speed for more "intelligent" algorithms. So my point is that if you use modest amounts of resources when testing programs, you may find that a newer (and potentially stronger) program could lose a match to an older (possibly weaker) program as the older program may use scarce resources more efficiently.
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.