Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:07:45 01/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 19, 1999 at 18:29:18, blass uri wrote: > >On January 19, 1999 at 16:10:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 19, 1999 at 00:54:03, blass uri wrote: >> >>> >>>On January 18, 1999 at 18:56:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On January 18, 1999 at 07:15:07, Jouni Uski wrote: >>>> >>>>>Sorry, but I haven't it here in our office. I take it tomorrow with me, if >>>>>nobody posts it before. >>>> >>>> >>>>Just a comment as I have said this before. At present, based on a _lot_ of >>>>games vs other programs on ICC, I believe that Junior 5 is probably the most >>>>dangerous program around. At least when playing computers. I haven't watched >>>>it against humans very much. But against computers, including mine, it is >>>>_very_ strong... >>> >>>I do not follow ICC. >>> >>>1)What are the results which you are based on? >>>2)Do you play against Junior5 or against Amir Ban's latest version? >>> >>>Uri >> >>Both. "ban" is (I assume) the latest version they want to test. Lonnie (and >>others) use junior 5 all the time. I am not doing badly against Junior at all, >>but when you factor in that my machine is around 4x faster than the hardware >>either is using. Which gives me a _really_ serious speed advantage (IE I am >>averaging about 700K-800K nodes per second on this machine most of the time.) >> >>Of all the programs I play (Lonnie seems to have 'em all) Junior 5 and 'ban' >>seem to be the strongest by a significant margin. IE against ban, just for >>the month of January (about 1/2 over) crafty has won 22, lost 11, drawn 18. >> >>I'd hope that my effective speedup of 2x-3x would produce a larger win/lose >>ratio than that. > >I think that speedup of 2x-3x produce similiar win/lose ratio. >If I look at the ssdf rating then I see difference of 60-100 elo for the same >program when the hardware is 2-3 times faster. > >Your result give you performance of near 400*(22-11)/(22+11+18)=4400/51 elo >points more than Junior5 so the result is readonable if I assume equal programs. > > But it doesn't. Now if you believe, as I do, that faster >>hardware always improves a program, then the above is explainable and I would >>conclude that maybe Junior is stronger, _if_ it has equal hardware. If you >>believe (as some do) that we have reached 'tactical sufficiency' and faster >>hardware isn't important, then this result means something else entirely. I'm >>in the former camp, which I believe to be correct here. > >It is clear that hardware is important because it is easy to see that all the >programs in the ssdf list(in cases they play on pentium200MMX and on P90) have >better results with pentium200MMX > >I do not know about people who believe that faster hardware is not important > >Uri Just visit Deja News and look up "NPS challenge"... a long thread between Ed and myself with a few others joining in... :)
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.