Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 18:13:26 03/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 28, 1999 at 19:17:15, James T. Walker wrote: >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 Another one-two years of development, of course. 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.