Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 18:57:13 08/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2004 at 16:59:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 30, 2004 at 16:23:25, Anthony Cozzie 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. >> >>Hydra is unquestionably very strong, but lets not forget that Shredder lost the >>first two games out of book. >> >>anthony > > >Depends also on the definition of "lost". IE it didn't come out of book at -4 >or something. It just got rolled in kingside attacks because of castle-opposite >issues that Hydra seemed to play better. Of course the stronger side often does >play such positions better. :) Of course Hydra is very strong. Its just that I am not willing to throw in the towel on Shredder and declare Hydra the new WCCC just yet ;) anthony
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.