Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 13:52:59 03/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 28, 1999 at 16:03:08, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: >I'm impressed with the performance of CM6K, although I believe that the first >position is somewhat overrated. I think between place 5-10 is more realistic. >And that's an upgrade already from my former opinion, rating it somewhere >between place 5-15. > >I played Fritz5.32 against CM6K at a fixed ply depth and they drawed. But Fritz >5.32 only took 2 minutes and CM6K took an hour (59 minutes) to complete the >game. I know that node speed isn't everything there is, but given the same >tactical insight the fastest engine will be the best. Or are there different >opinions? > >My system is a P2@400MHz with 128Mb SDRAM. This is because CM does a lot more in a ply than Fritz. As someone else said, it is like comparing race cars at fixed RPM. Fritz has a very small evaluation, and it is a root processor. Fritz may reach 300k NPS, and CM might get something like 50k, but it does not mean that Fritz is any better. Hiarcs also gets low NPS. If you played Hiarcs and Fritz to the same depth, Fritz would probably get there faster, but Hiarcs would likely win. Many things can affect the depth/time ratio. The two things can not be compared. Jeremiah
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.