Author: James T. Walker
Date: 16:17:15 03/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 28, 1999 at 15:46:53, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >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 Hello Eugene, I can appreciate your line of reasoning. Crafty has an advantage with multiple processors. I believe Crafty is showing other programmers the way of the future. I don't think processors will get much faster than 1-2 giga-hertz if that fast. Speed increases beyond that will naturally turn to multiple processors and everyone will have to learn to use them (Of course only my opinion). None of this explains Crafty's inability to beat or even play equal to the top commercial programs on equal hardware. To me this suggest there is something missing in Crafty which limits it's strength. I am only interested in what it is. What would make Crafty on par with the top commercial programs? Jim Walker
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.