Author: Didzis Cirulis
Date: 04:12:02 12/04/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 04, 1998 at 06:59:50, Kai Skibbe wrote: >On December 04, 1998 at 06:47:56, Didzis Cirulis wrote: > >>On December 04, 1998 at 05:00:23, Kai Skibbe wrote: >> >>>On December 04, 1998 at 03:02:50, Didzis Cirulis wrote: >>> >>>>On December 04, 1998 at 01:53:03, Kai Skibbe wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 03, 1998 at 23:26:30, Vicente Fernández wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On December 03, 1998 at 19:13:41, Micheal Cummings wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>I get the impression that because CM6000 is very cheap to buy then people do not >>>>>>>consider it to be very strong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Well with the amount of money that the Chessmaster programs pull in, I think >>>>>>>that the guy who programs the kings engine would also be pulling in allot of >>>>>>>money, and thus would have the resources to make such a strong engine even >>>>>>>stronger. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>CM6000 is marketed for the mass public, and because it does not have an >>>>>>>autoplayer and cannot play against other programs unsupervised, that alot of >>>>>>>people dismiss CM6K and for that matter the versions before, because of the lack >>>>>>>of results against other programs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>And I have already started to see that CM6K has been pulling in some very good >>>>>>>results in tournaments already, and all I hear, is "what a suprise". Anyone who >>>>>>>has been using Chessmaster since CM5000, knows that it is very strong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Well I hope CM6K does beat the other programs if anyone out there will play it >>>>>>>manually (too SSDF members), just to shut up people who keep making comments >>>>>>>that this cheap software program, which sells more than any other chess program >>>>>>>100 times over. Cannot be strong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>And to Mindscape, put in a damn autoplayer so you can shut all these people up >>>>>>>and kick their sorry butt. >>>>>> >>>>>>I have manually played 4 games between CM6000 an fritz 5.1, 60-60, on a k62-300 >>>>>>with 128 ram. Chessmaster 6000 leads 3 to 1, winning both games with black. >>>>>>Using the thinking lines window I can see that chessmaster gets a more accurate >>>>>>evaluation of the positions and, most important, "sees" drawbacks and mates >>>>>>before Fritz 5 does. Although the number of games played manually doesn´t count >>>>>>statistically, I can tell for sure that CM6000 is very, very strong, maybe the >>>>>>strongest... who knows? And, I agree with Mr. Cummings: cheap is not weak, and, >>>>>>surely, everybody would like to see an autoplayer on the new King version. >>>>> >>>>>Do you play the games on one computer ? In this case the match is unfair for the >>>>>opponent of chessmaster, because cm6000 uses the processor even if you have >>>>>played the match with permanent brain of. >>>>>Conclusion : No matches with cm6000 on one computer ! >>>>> >>>>>Best regards >>>>>Kai >>>>Wrong! Although you are right in regard that CM is a processor hog even with the >>>>permanent brain off, one can still have a fair match between any two programs if >>>>some testing and calculations are done before. >>> >>>I think it is not wrong ! I only said that you can not play fair matches with >>>cm6000. Matches between Fritz5 and Rebel 10 for example are possible. Other >>>programs that worked are Shredder and Junior. >>> >>>Or how do you configure the programs to do a fair match ? >>> >>>Kai >> >>Ok, Kai :-) Let's go over it in couple of words: >> >>So, What do we have - a single PC and any two programs. And we are mad with >>desire to test the programs we have got as fair as possible. Right? >> >>Step one: make sure both programs can be run with the permanent brain off. For >>example, it is difficult for Nimzo 98 as there is no PB on/off option in this >>program. >> >>Step two: For dos programs make sure they get as much processor power as >>possible when active and gets suspended when unactive. (See Christophe's >>comments above.) >> >>Step three: find out the Hash sizes your programs can afford. Example: On my 32 >>Mb RAM system, I usually give 8 Mb of hash to both programs to avoid any >>swapping. This IS important, as swaping makes everything useless. >> >> >>Step four: Imagine there is an amount of calculations that should be done by a >>program, say, 1 milion positions. And now you should do some testing: >> Situation (all numbers are given as an example only!): >> >> 1) get the time used by the program A when it runs alone: 100 seconds >> 2) same task, same program A, but program B is there >> unactive in the background, and hogs some computing power: 140 seconds >> >> 3) get the time used by the program B when it runs alone: 120 seconds >> 4) same task, same program B, but program A is there >> unactive in the background, and hogs some computing power: 125 seconds >> >> So, in both situations it may happen that program runs slower if another one >>sits there in the background. >> >>Step five: Calculations! >> Formula: >> koeficient =(result with a "hog" in background)/ (result if alone) >> >> For program A it makes: 140/100=1.4 >> For program B it makes: 125/120=1.042 >> >>Step six: Let's say we want to play at 30 minutes per game level. What do we do >>now is the calculation of the times needed by both programs: >> >> For program A: 30 minutes x 1.4 = 42 minutes >> For program B: 30 minutes x 1.042 = 31.26 minutes or let's say 31 minute. >> >>Final step: we give Program A the 42 minutes for the game, and 31 minute to >>Program B, and :-) >> >>Run all tests 3 times! Sometimes it is required to restart the program every >>time to be sure we get the same situation again. >> >>This is the way we can make a fair match even on a single PC where both programs >>are busy stealing the computing power from each other :-) >> >>There may be different practical applications of this. One program may have some >>built-in test that is very convenient for this purpose, but another one may be >>tested running a test position at a fixed depth. Or there may be programs where >>you should disable Book, and run the initial position as a test position... Ask >>me if any problems. >> >>Didzis > >Thanks for your detailed explanation :-) >I will try this..... > >Kai I know it will work for you as great as it does for me! Good luck! Didzis
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.