Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 10:59:13 05/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 1999 at 11:24:22, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: > >On May 30, 1999 at 04:22:59, Micheal Cummings wrote: > >> >>On May 29, 1999 at 10:09:02, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: >> >>> >>>I don't understand how you can seriously give credence to this match when you >>>are running Nimzo on superior hardware. The advantage of Nimzo on a Pentium 200 >>>MMX is not to be taken lightly. Regardless, Hiarcs 6 is outdated by Hiarcs 7 and >>>the Hash tables in Hiarcs 7 is much higher than what you listed for Hiarcs 6. My >>>main point is that when testing chess programs, you should test them on the SAME >>>type of computer. >>> >>>Regards, >>>Mel >> >>Mel you must be new here, this is an old topic. Simply put when the calculations >>are done. Hiarcs6 has played many games, and they know how strong it is on a >>P90. So just because Nimzo99 is beating it easily, say for i9nstance 20:5 for >>Nimzo99 over Hiarcs6, when the calulations are done, it might end up hurting >>Nimzo99, cause it should have beaten it say 20:2 to actually gain any points >>improvements. So it may actually lose points beating the program 20:5. > >Hello Micheal > >I still disagree. When you say they know of the variables associated with >playing programs on processors of different speeds, I see conclusions based on >speculation. How accurate is their theory of applying value to A versus B on >slow versus fast processors? It is in my opinion still speculation. I feel >testing software must be done on equal terms to get meaningful results. I don't >like to use the hypothetical when reality exists. It is not impossible to do >testing with computers of equal strength. I do not see to which hypothetical you refer. "Hiarcs6, P90" and "Nimzo99, MMX" seem both real to me. If you have any doubt about the hash table size and/or other settings for each entry, you can ask the SSDF. José. > > >>You have a point, but in the end it all works out pretty close. > >Close maybe but it's still not the best way to compare software. >> >>Kasparov taking on a player ranked around 2000 elo, will not improve his ranking >>say if he beats someone around 2700, then it will. >> >>So just because it is on slower hardware, and the other is killing it, does not >>mean that the winning program is going to get great points improvement. > >The amount of points you speak of is of a hypothetical nature. If you like >comparing software with A at B speed and C at D speed, then we just simply >disagree. > >Regards, >Mel >>Regards >> >>Micheal
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.