Author: George Sobala
Date: 03:52:38 12/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On December 04, 2004 at 06:37:34, Kurt Utzinger wrote: > > I accept this opinion but nevertheless do not want > to change my mind. BTW, have you ever seen an engine > that becomes weaker on faster hardware or at slower > time controls? > Kurt I mean that there are some engines which are good at blitz but not so good at longer time controls. So *proportionately* weaker on faster hardware / longer time controls. I cannot believe you would want such an engine! > > The Nunn2 match vs CT_15 (40'/40 on Duron 1.3/64 MB hash) > will be finished in about half an hour I think. You will > get the full PGN from me. But about one thing I am sure: > it's not possible to have a real comparison by simply > using an adapted time control on a faster PC to simulate > 40'/40. The behaviour of most engines is not the same at > different time controls. Otherwise you could for example > compare a match 5m/g on P4 3.6 with a 40'/40 match on 486/33 > but this does not work. > Kurt > Of course it is not a direct "rerun" and the games will likely be very different. I am not trying to prove anything, it is just for fun. I just haven't managed to beat Gandalf in a match on my system with anything except Shredder so far! I look forward to the PGN. Thanks. Also the link to CSS rating list was new to me: http://www.computerschach.de/magazin/rangliste_english/ Klaus is doing an outstanding, organised and thorough job. Very interesting.
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.