Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:57:50 08/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2004 at 16:39:22, Mark Young wrote: >On August 30, 2004 at 15:33:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 30, 2004 at 14:51:01, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On August 30, 2004 at 13:51:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On August 30, 2004 at 12:24:54, Volker Böhm wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 30, 2004 at 10:02:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On August 30, 2004 at 08:30:34, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On August 30, 2004 at 08:12:52, Jouni Uski wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Eine FPGA-Karte untersucht momentan ca. 3 Millionen Positionen/Sekunde. 16 >>>>>>>>Karten machen daher theoretisch 48 MPos/sec. (Donninger) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Jouni >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If Hydra made 48 Mpos/sec this again proves (in comparison >>>>>>> with the 2 Mpos/sec on Quad-Opteron server with 4 CPU's of >>>>>>> Shredder) that the number of pos/sec can't be taken as a >>>>>>> reliable value for the goodness of a chess program. It's >>>>>>> of course simply impossible to compare apples and organes. >>>>>>> Kurt [http://www.utzingerk.com] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Don't forget that Hydra ripped Shredder's head off. So the NPS _might_ be >>>>>>significant here... >>>>> >>>>>Didn´t I´ve heard you saying that 10 games are not enough to draw a >>>>>statistically significant conclusion on the playing strength? >>>>> >>>>>Greetings Volker >>>> >>>> >>>>With two _close_ opponents, correct. But if one is seriously stronger, as hydra >>>>appeared to be, 10 games is plenty. >>> >>>We do not know if hydra is seriously stronger. >> >>We have a pretty good clue that it is. It is over 10x faster, potentially, than >>other programs. >> >>1. I first assume that the programmer / designer is no dummy. >> >>2. all else being "equal" 10x faster is a _serious_ advantage. >> >>3. the above two points translate into a signficant strength advantage. >> >> >>> >>>You cannot start by assuming that hydra is significantly stronger when this is >>>the question. >> >>With evidence, you can. IE I can certainly assume that Crafty on an 8-way >>opteron is significantly stronger than Crafty on my dual xeon. >> >> >>> >>>If you see 10-0 you can say based on the result that Hydra is significantly >>>stronger but when you see 5.5-2.5 you cannot claim it based on the result and >>>you only can say that you do not know if it is significantly stronger based on >>>the result. >>> >> >> >>If you only look at the results, maybe or maybe not. But I watched many of the >>games with Crafty analyzing. That tells you even more. > >Common sense should tell us that Hydra is stronger. It should have a big >hardware advantage. I think this is your point, and I agree. But I still need >more data to be sure. Right now there is only a 1 in 6 chance that Hydra is the >stronger program based on the games alone. Where does "one in six" come from? IE 1. Hydra is at least 10x faster 2. It won three and drew five if I recall. which is 5.5/8.0. which is right at +200 on the Elo scale. Yes the number of games is low, but the 1 in 6 seems very weak. IE when you consider _everything_. And don't forget that older versions (Brutus in particular) played on ICC, and the current version is playing on playchess. There are a lot of games. It is nowhere near invincible. But it is _very_ strong compared to other programs. Of course I am not _sure_. But I an fairly well convinced. :) > >> >> >> >>>Uri
This page took 0.01 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.