Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 11:27:23 08/12/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 12, 2005 at 14:23:29, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On August 12, 2005 at 11:52:26, Darrel Briley wrote:
>
>>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
>
>
>In that game crafty should have been whispering/kibitzing probably. I don't
>remember the game myself since I have played several over the past few nights
>and am generally pretty well burned-out before I start the games, so I tend to
>not remember who the opponents were (other than Blargh, shredder on a dual
>opteron that I have played several longer games against recently to test
>things). Did Crafty think it was worse during the game? Or did both think they
>were better, which is not that uncommon...
>
>And remember, that was a fast game. Longer time controls tend to narrow the
>search gap significantly. But speed can be a killer no matter what... of
>course...
Were you able to get that last .5 factor of NPS scaling?
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.