Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:48:26 08/16/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 16, 2005 at 17:31:35, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 16, 2005 at 16:44:26, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On August 16, 2005 at 16:33:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On August 16, 2005 at 16:14:37, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On August 16, 2005 at 16:05:39, Ingo Althofer wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 16, 2005 at 15:57:30, Gerd Isenberg wrote: >>>>>> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >>>>>>1. Shredder 6 x 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 >>>>>>2. Zappa 5 0 x 1 0 1 1 1 1 >>>>>>3. Junior 4.5 0 0 x 1 1 1/2 1 1 >>>>>>4. Fruit 4.5 1 1 0 x 1 1 0 1/2 >>>>>>5. Crafty 2.5 0 0 0 0 x 1 1/2 1 >>>>>>6. Diep 2.5 0 0 1/2 0 0 x 1 1 >>>>>>7. Jonny 1.5 0 0 0 1 1/2 0 x 0 >>>>>>8. Deep Sjeng 1.5 0 0 0 1/2 0 0 1 x >>>>> >>>>>Hello Gerd, >>>>> >>>>>thanks for the full information. >>>>> >>>>>Congratulations to Stefan for winning the Blitz title. >>>>>Good luck for you for the remaining round of the WCCC! >>>>> >>>>>Ingo. >>>> >>>>congratulation for stefan and congratulation for fruit for scoring more than >>>>Crafty and showing that number of processors is not the only important thing. >>>> >>>>It seems that fruit one processor is not weaker than Crafty 8 processors based >>>>on the results. >>>> >>>>I wonder if there were time losses because of bad operators. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>> >>>Your logic is sometimes horrible. Blitz is not normal chess. If you think it >>>is, you are _sadly_ mistaken. I watched IM Mike Valvo give 1-5 time odds to GM >>>players and beat 'em at blitz. But not OTB in standard time controls... >> >>I understood from another post that you say that Crafty is not tuned for blitz >>because of some reasons. >> >>I understand the reason of the parallel search but I still need to see example >>for significant different results between blitz and long time control for >>programs without bugs. >> >>I know that usually when program improve they improve in all time controls. >>I do not know of evaluation changes or search changes that make programs weaker >>at blitz but stronger at long time control. > >Quite simple. You can extend more in blitz, to avoid tactical mistakes. But if >you double the search depth, those extensions can add too much overhead. > >But that is irrelevant here. It is about the SMP search tuning, and the minimum >search depth from the tips where I allow splits to be done. What if that >minimum depth is greater than the blitz search depth for quick searches? > >You can believe what you want. I personally don't have time to drag up examples >of where tuning for blitz is bad for long time controls and vice-versa. But it >is an absolute fact that it happens. Perhaps not to all programs, I don't know >about that. But for parallel search, at least for one with a reasonable level >of performance, tuning makes all the difference. I ran for _days_ on the >opteron, testing different settings over dozens of positions, to find the >optimal average... I agree that for parallel search it may make difference. Uri
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.