Author: Uri Blass
Date: 17:03:49 02/12/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 12, 2006 at 19:04:55, Heinz van Kempen wrote: >On February 12, 2006 at 17:20:31, Ray Banks wrote: > >>On February 12, 2006 at 15:23:50, Alessandro Scotti wrote: >> >>>Hi, >>>is there a table somewhere that shows how much Elo can an engine get from being >>>10%, 20%, ... 100+% faster? >>>Usually speed improvements are considered marginal to "algorithmic" >>>improvements, but on CEGT the difference between Deep Shredder 9.12 x64 2CPU and >>>Shredder 9 is 65 elo, and between Rybka 64-bit and Rybka 32-bit an amazing 62 >>>elo... in the latter case not bad at all for just recompiling the program! >>>I'd rather have my program slow and correct than fast and buggy, but I'm still >>>wondering if it's still worth to invest some effort in optimizing things a >>>little. >> >>http://kd.lab.nig.ac.jp/chess/CCRL-4040/rating-table-all.shtml >> >>We currently have a difference of 42 ELO Rybka 64 bit vs 32 bit. Our time >>control is more than twice as long as CEGT though, and that could have an >>impact. Plus our volume of games is fairly low so the statistical error is >>somewhat higher unfortunately :-( >> >>We are also testing Naum in both 32 bit and 64 bit versions, so that will also >>give more information. But that will take 2-3 weeks probably > >Hi, > >the explanation of differences is more likely to be explained from too few >games, than from giving more time. Even compared with Blitz we have very few >differences for engines. Going to longer time controls mainly has the effect to >be unable to test a lot of engines and versions, especially more amateurs. > >So CEGT will resist to do that except from tournament time control games not >used for statistics but for investigation of opening systems and for giving >some high quality games. > >As we have totally different concepts and because of the history all this has >had I would suggest to avoid any comparison between our groups, at least from >CCRL people. We did not do this from our side and it would be fair that you also >avoid it. > >Thanks for listening. >Heinz I think that the difference may be dependent on the opening position that you start. You can do a round robin tournament for every position. If you have 151 programs you can get 300 games for every one of them in a single position by round robin tournament when every 2 engines play 2 games. It will not give you correct rating lists of the engines because engines may be lucky in specific position that they like but I think that it may be interesting to find positions when speed is relatively more important and positions when knowledge is relatively more important. Uri
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.