Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:30:38 09/17/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 17, 2005 at 16:21:31, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 17, 2005 at 13:42:07, Albert Silver wrote: > >>On September 17, 2005 at 10:04:32, ALI MIRAFZALI wrote: >> >>>Hyatt has claimed many times that a Nodes Per Second Factor of one thousand >>>times would not be overcome by the program with the less Nodes per second.In >>>this Experiment it was shown conclusively that this is false .Although I played >>>4 games ,I do not think the result would have been different if I had played a >>>hundred more.Time Control 40 MOVES IN 2 HOURS followed by sudden death in 1 >>>hour.Hardware: GNU CHESS 4.11 a program from 1996 ran a celeron 1.8 Gig machine >>>;Chess Tiger on Palm ran on the Palm Tungten E.NODES PER SECOND:ON THE >>>AVERAGE:CHESSTIGER ON PALM 500 per second ,GNU CHESS 4.11 500000 per second on >>>the celeron 1.8 Gig.1000X DIFFERENCE.Hyatt and some other people have always >>>argued about the supremecy of DeepBlue based on its speed.I think these days >>>these arguments are false;and Speed does not mean as much as it used to.Deep >>>blue would be crushed by todays program's.A lot of STRENGTH is EVALUATION >>>FUNCTION.Take a look at these games: >>>Match ended in 2-2 draw. >> >>The idea of testing this is certainly interesting but the conditions seem rather >>dubious IMHO. For one thing, 4 games really is COMPLETELY meaningless, andwith >>all due respect to claim you don't think the result could have been different >>shows how much you don't understand this. >> >>BTW, does Tiger really only get 500 nodes per second on your Palm? That seems >>ridiculously low. I don't have Tiger, nor a Palm for that matter, but on my Dell >>Pocket PC at 624MHz, I get about 50,000 nps on average for Fruit 2.1. > >Pocket PC is clearly faster than a palm. >palm Tiget was tested by the ssdf and as far as I remember it was more than 100 >times slower in node per second than tiget on normal pc. > >> >>Note that if one is to believe the results of Hiarcs site >>(http://www.hiarcs.com/phresults.htm), Tiger on the Palm has inordinately bad >>results (they claim it plays over 400 points worse than Hiarcs on identical >>hardware, which is HUGE), so perhaps it isn't the ideal choice. > >Hiarcs is probably stronger than tiger but >I do not believe that it can be 400 elo stronger on identical hardware. > >I guess that the truth is that Hiarcs simply can use better palm than Tiger. > >Uri looking at that site confirm my theory Based on the site tiger is even weaker than Genius when I remember that the ssdf found tiger better than genius on the same hardware. I think that even if it is the same hardware then tiger simply cannot use the hardware that it gets and I think that the reason should be explained in the hiarcs site. Uri
This page took 0.01 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.