Author: Darrel Briley
Date: 08:52:26 08/12/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 11, 2005 at 20:57:09, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On August 11, 2005 at 14:37:56, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>On August 11, 2005 at 14:00:24, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On August 11, 2005 at 13:57:36, Madhavan wrote:
>>>
>>>>On August 11, 2005 at 13:53:37, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On August 11, 2005 at 12:55:10, Thorsten Czub wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>1. Fruit
>>>>>>2. Shredder
>>>>>>3. Junior
>>>>>>4. Crafty
>>>>>>5. Zappa
>>>>>>6. Diep
>>>>>>7. Sjeng
>>>>>>8. Jonny
>>>>>>9. IsiChess
>>>>>>10. My_fute
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That will be a miracle. A single opteron CPU (single core) is 2x as fast as a
>>>>>3.0ghz pentium. I, at least, will be running on 8 of 'em. That is a tough
>>>>>disadvantage to overcome...
>>>>
>>>>Don't forget Fruit beta has got another 100 elo improvement.
>>>
>>>
>>>Doesn't matter at all. a speed advantage of 16x is huge. Not insurmountable,
>>>but _huge_ and very difficult to overcome.
>>
>>I guess that it does not gives more than 150-200 elo improvement because of
>>diminishing return that means that being twice faster give only 40-50 elo
>>improvement at long time control and not 70 elo.
>>
>>It seems that public fruit is about 150-200 elo better than public Crafty.
>>I expect both WCCC fruit and WCCC Crafty to be better than the public version so
>>it seems to me that fruit and Crafty have equal chances.
>>
>>Maybe Crafty has better chances because you could learn from Fruit's evaluation
>>so you improved Crafty more than Fabien improved Fruit but only you can tell if
>>looking at the source of fruit helped you to improve Crafty.
>
>That I can answer easily. I've not looked at the source of fruit. So there's
>no way it could have helped. In fact, I haven't even seen a game fruit vs
>crafty so I have no idea how the thing plays.
>
>My comment was solely about speed. a factor of 16 (over 3.0ghz) is 4 doublings,
>each doubling is certainly worth something. Whether it will make Crafty
>stronger than fruit, I won't speculate about since I have no idea how they
>compare on equal hardware with reasonable opening book moves. But given two
>programs that are within a hundred rating points of each other, I'd be
>hard-pressed to not pick the one that is suddenly 12-16X faster...
>
>That was my only point. I don't know that I'll win a single game. But I do
>know that it is going to be hell to beat the thing. I've seen 15 ply searches
>in 5 3 games on ICC in the middlegame. I saw 16-17 ply middlegame searches
>against Junior in the next-to-last CCT which Crafty won on a quad cpu box. This
>one is 2x faster...
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Also I don't believe the +100 elo stuff anyway, otherwise all the programs would
>>>be rated 3600 and up by now...
>>
>>I also do not believe the +100 elo stuff for fruit in this version but the stuff
>>is only about fruit so I do not see how you get your conclusion about other
>>programs.
>
>Simple. Every year, every new version, "the new version is 60-80-100 elo
>stronger than last year's version." Seen that over and over and over. :)
>
>
>
>
>>
>>The +100 elo stuff was correct for Fruit in the past and it is a fact that fruit
>>improved faster than other programs
>>
>>Fruit2.0 was already above Crafty level on one cpu and Fruit2.1 is slightly more
>>than 100 elo better than fruit2.0 based on the CEGT rating list.
>>
>>Uri
Bob may not have noticed (or payed it much attention since it was a blitz game),
but I used Fruit 2.1 against 8x Crafty in one game. Score follows.
[Event "ICC 5 3"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2005.08.10"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Frutit 2.1"]
[Black "crafty"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ICCResult "Crafty"]
[WhiteElo "3020"]
[BlackElo "2813"]
[Opening "Sicilian: Richter-Rauzer, Rauzer attack, 7...a6"]
[ECO "B66"]
[NIC "SI.29"]
[Time "23:22:40"]
[TimeControl "300+3"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Bg5 e6 7. Qd2 a6 8.
O-O-O h6 9. Be3 Be7 10. f4 Nxd4 11. Bxd4 b5 12. Qe3 Bb7 13. Bxf6 gxf6 14.
Bd3 b4 15. Ne2 Qa5 16. Kb1 Rc8 17. Rhe1 Qc5 18. Qg3 Bf8 19. Nd4 Qa5 20. f5
e5 21. Nb3 Qb6 22. Nd2 Qc5 23. h3 Qc7 24. Bc4 a5 25. Bb5+ Bc6 26. Bxc6+ Qxc6
27. Rc1 a4 28. c3 b3 29. axb3 axb3 30. Nxb3 Rb8 31. Nd2 Qb5 32. Rc2 h5 33.
c4 Qa5 34. Qc3 Qa6 35. Rd1 Ra8 36. b3 Bh6 37. Nf3 O-O 38. Qb2 Rfb8 39. Rc3
Rb6 40. g4 Qa7 41. g5 fxg5 42. h4 g4 43. Ng5 Ra6 44. Rcd3 Ra1+ 45. Kc2 Ra2
46. Rxd6 Bf8 47. R6d5 Bb4 48. Rd8+ Kg7 49. f6+ Kg6 50. Rg8+ Rxg8 51. Nh3
Rxb2+ 52. Kxb2 Ra8 53. Nf4+ exf4 54. Rd5 Qa1+ 55. Kc2 Ra2+ 56. Kd3 Rd2#
{White checkmated}
0-1
Fruit showed a pretty good advantage in the eval for most of the game, that is
until those Q-side pawns came crashing down.
It's only a blitz game, but as a result I've revised my thinking on Fruit's
chances. Lack of multi-processor support and using the hardware provided
locally (PIV 3Ghz) will keep Fruit from being a serious contender.
DB
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.