Author: G.Mueller
Date: 06:23:15 01/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 1999 at 08:28:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... Hello Bob! You are right I do remark same on my single Xeon overclockt to 504 Mhz with 1MB 2.level Cache, the downloadable bionic is never the same version that played in Dutch Championchip, it matches about 80%, Crafty 16.1 in about 75%, do not test with TB. A download from the originally Dutchversion would be very nice to answer all this difficult questions. In Dualuse (i test on a Quadxeon with mt=2) Bionic seems evident fast as Crafty 16.1 on single it is slower. But a Quadmachine is not really good for testing a dual machine I know, but bionic is compiled with two CPUS. Best wishes to you Bob! G.Mueller
This page took 0.02 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.