Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 12:46:53 03/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 28, 1999 at 09:15:11, James T. Walker wrote: >On March 27, 1999 at 15:43:42, Eugene Nalimov wrote: > >>On March 27, 1999 at 12:45:05, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>> >>>On March 27, 1999 at 03:55:25, blass uri wrote: >>> >>>>It is not fair because part of the effort in doing the program crafty is by >>>>doing it a parallel machine. >>>>I believe that Bob could do in the same time a better program if he did not >>>>waste time for doing a SMP program. >>> >>>If someone wants to compare Crafty and Fritz I think it would be fair to compare >>>them on uniform high-end (single-processor) hardware, since they are both >>>designed to work on that hardware. >>> >>>If one of them would only run on a 286, I don't think it would be fair to make >>>them both run on a 286. >>> >>>But multiprocessor machines are still a super- high-end thing so it's probably >>>not fair to say: Here is the machine, it has 4 processors, feel free to use >>>them in this match. Oh, what did you say Fritz, you can't use 4 processors, you >>>can only use one? Well, that's too bad for you. You might as well put them >>>both on an Alpha and expect Fritz to use an emulator. >>> >>>In a few years, maybe, because everyone will have a multiprocessor machine, but >>>of course everyone will be multiprocessor then. >>> >>>Bob's put time in being SMP, sure, but I think he supports single-processor >>>machines and runs well on them. >>> >>>bruce >> >>Bob spent his time working on SMP. Also, he deliberatly lost some >>performance by using C instead of assembly. >> >>Author of Fritz decided not to include SMP code, as well as write >>his program on assembly to squize last pieces of performance. >> >>By using single-CPU x86-compatible machine you favor Fritz - he will >>be running on the best possible platform. >> >>Maybe it's better to put some dollar limit - e.g. "on a machines >>that cost not more than $7,500". >> >>Eugene > >Maybe it's better to say "For the average user". The average person does not >have a $7500 machine. For the average user ($2000 PC or less) Crafty comes up >way short of Fritz and Junior and the other top programs made for PC's. So for >comparable speed machines, Crafty gets beat more often than not. If you want to >put Crafty on a 4 processor machine which increases it's speed by a factor of >say 3.5 then give Fritz a comparable speed increase and it will still come out >on top. This is not a put down of Crafty. I have often wondered the same thing >about why Crafty gets beat by the top programs when Crafty seems to have all the >modern techniques of chess programming. The question begs for an answer not to >put down Crafty but to search for weakness which can be overcome. I believe >this will take some analysis by master chess players which I am not. I believe >this question was given in the sense of trying to find an answer which will >eventually make Crafty a better program. Everyone appreciates the fact that >Crafty is portable to different platforms because of the C language. This has >to cost some rating points but I don't believe it accounts for the majority of >the rating difference between Crafty and the top programs. >Jim Walker I was not the first who started the talk about "top of the line computer". I just pointed that for the same money you can buy computer that will be much more 'Crafty-friendly'. If you want to go to more reasonable price range - Ok. Here is a surprise, too - computer that will give Crafty advantage in computing power over Fritz can be *cheaper* than top of the line 'Fritz-friendly' computer in the same price range. For example, dual PII/350 cost less than PII/450; dual PII/400 cost less than PIII/500. Also, Crafty needs less memory than Fritz for its' hashes. Eugene
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.