Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 11:30:59 12/17/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 17, 1998 at 04:08:31, Komputer Korner wrote: >On December 16, 1998 at 18:00:39, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote: > >>On December 16, 1998 at 16:42:57, Komputer Korner wrote: >> >>>On December 16, 1998 at 12:50:36, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote: >>> >>>>On December 15, 1998 at 02:08:19, Steven Juchnowski wrote: >>>> >>>>>Is there an explaination as to why the relative strength >>>>>of a Chessmaster personality should vary under different time >>>>>controls? >>>>> >>>>>Chessmaster 6555 appears to be stronger than Chessmaster 6000-4 >>>>>under blitz conditions, why is this not necessarily true under longer >>>>>time controls. After all both personaliies are using the same chess engine. >>>>> >>>>>Regards to all you Chessmaster reseachers. >>>>>Steven >>>> >>>> That can happen with any two engines. If you slow down a current >>computer by a >>>>factor of 1000 and play a match between a good current program on it against a >>>>good old program in and old computer (from when the computers were 1000 times >>>>slower) at standard time control; I am sure the old program will win, because >>it >>>>was optimized to get the most of the available resources at that time (which >>>>were scarce). >>>> On the other hand, if somehow you speed up the old machine 1000 times >>and play >>>>the match, then the new program in the new machine will win. Slowing down or >>>>speeding up are equivalent to changing the time control, and now it is clear >>>>that different engines are best at different time controls. >>> >>>At short time controls where hash tables are involved this is not true. Your >>>time handicapping is thrown out of kilter by instant hash reads. The KK Kup is >>>fair because even though it has time handicapping the hash tables get filled up >>>quickly with the extremely long time controls and the hash reads are a very >>>minor factor. >>>-- >>>Komputer Korner >> >> I did not mean time handicapping as is usually understood (i.e. giving >>more time to one player). I meant hypothetical machines, one which is like a >>modern PC but many times slower for one example, other one which is like an old >>vacuum tubes computer but many times faster for the other. >> >> The difference is in the pondering time: giving more time for one player >>gives also more time to the opponent to ponder. >> >> Also, I meant standard time controls, say 40 moves in two hours. Correct >>me if I am wrong, I understand that you think that a modern program on a modern >>machine at a very fast time control would play better than an old program on an >>old machine at a slow time control. Unfortunately it is very difficult to check >>this out: it requires an old computer with a chess program, and there is the >>technical difficulty with the pondering time. > >The reason that the KK Kup is fair is that there is no pondering and the hash >tables get filled up quickly. Different machine speeds are a tricky business in >any other setup other than KK Kup rules. Of course if you switch the computers >half way through the match then that is fair but that is impossible to do when >measuring dedicated machines vs software. The modern programs will of course >play better because of improved algorithms. If you simply handicap via >difference in machine speed that will not be enough even if you disable >pondering. >-- >Komputer Korner No doubt that the KK Kup is fair, but again I am meaning very different time controls. Also, the algorithms have improved. I understand that you think that even disabling pondering a current program+machine with a very reduced amount of time would play better than an old program+machine. Let me refer to the old times when it was impossible to make a full-width alpha-beta 3-ply search in 3 minutes. The programs of those times were invariably Shannon type B. On those very slow machines they were better than a Shannon type A program, due to the scarcity of resources. When faster machines arrived, type A programs began to dominate the scenario. My point is that while the algorithms have improved in many ways, they have adapted to faster hardware in a no less important way.
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.