Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:28:26 01/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 1999 at 02:31:21, Albrecht Heeffer wrote: >On January 28, 1999 at 15:56:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>note that some of the positions end up in tablebases. I don't know what they >>used, but I used none, because of the format change from 15.20 to 16.0. As a >>result, I ran with no tablebase hits possible... > >We did use the old tablebases (72). In the log files you can see the probes. >In fact we probably saved the Kallisto game from a draw by the tablesbases. >The endgame was was winning but Bionic did not play the best moves until >suddenly: > > 13 6.31 fhigh Kd6!! > 13-> 7.20 6.62 Kd6 > 14 7.58 fhigh Kd6!! > 14-> 13.08 7.01 Kd6 > 15 13.26 fhigh Kd6!! > 15 17.08 Mat28 Kd6 Kg7 Ke6 f5 Bf3 Kh6 Kf6 Kh7 Bc6 > Kh6 Bd7 <HT> > time=23.65 cpu=196% mat=2 n=9446180 fh=98% nps=399415 > ext-> checks=236796 recaps=13251 pawns=234693 1rep=184173 > predicted=37 nodes=9446180 evals=3370257 > endgame tablebase-> probes done=137165 successful=137159 > hashing-> trans/ref=111% pawn=99% used=w29% b37% > SMP-> split=2503 stop=80 data=8/64 cpu=46.52 elap=23.65 > >mate in 28 moves. > >>If someone has a PII/400 they can run on, I can run crafty on one processor at >>1 minute per position, and they could run bionic the same way. A PII/400 and >>my xeon/400 are close to the same speed. that would be the best comparison >>unless one person wants to run both bionic _and_ wcrafty_15.20.exe (from my >>ftp site) on the same box, which would be even better... >> >>I'd much prefer that to eliminate all variables. the SMP code produces some >>odd results at times, and my linux version is 15% slower than the corresponding >>windows executable due to MSVC being a better compiler. All in all, too many >>different things... > >The results so far do not seem to indicate that Crafty 15.20 plays all >the same moves as the Bionic games in the Dutch Open. I'm still wondering >how you were able to reproduce all the right moves in three games with >Crafty 16.1 on your hardware. Did you use SMP then? > >Albrecht Heeffer No. What I did was search for 10 minutes per position, and if the programs matched after a minute or more, I counted it as a match. I then looked at the very few where they didn't match. In a couple of cases there were simple transpositions that evaluated to the same score and pre-processing could affect that by changing the root move order. If crafty's move and bionic's move had the same score, and roughly the same PV I counted those as matches. Finally, in a couple of cases it was obvious that they had the same idea, just different ways to reach that... The pv's were similar but in different order (notably in a couple of endgame positions where there were no real tactics to consider.) But notice that 'bionic' is not matching 'bionic-tournament' very well, when you think about it. The web site version matched 77% of the moves, while version 15.20 matched 74%. Everyone else is well back from that. And I was searching faster than the bionic in the tournament, and the one tested here, which is why I suggested someone run 15.20 and bionic on the _same_ hardware and do this test. That would be better...
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.