Author: Owen Lyne
Date: 07:41:00 09/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 17, 1999 at 09:22:38, Bernhard Bauer wrote: >I ran Crafty's benchmark for version 16.8 by starting the execulable and typing >bench. I used no crafty.rc, so no special hash settings. I ran bench with >1. Dann Corbit's executable >2. Bob Hyatt's executable >3. My executable >all on a 450 MHz pentium. > >I got > > nodes nps sec time_to-ply >Dann Corbit 61519180 249065 247 2.591 >Bob Hyatt 71022354 280720 253 2.529 >My own 191067196 250744 762 0.8399 > >Question: Why does my own result differ so much in "nodes". I used MSVC++ 6.0. > >Remark: This version looks really god to me. Perhaps it is the strongest ever. >Kind regards >Bernhard The last version is 16.18 not 16.8 - which did you use? The benchmark changed in one of the recent versions, so it doesn't search as deeply (hence doesn't take as long). Perhaps your own executable is hence running a different benchmark? The NPD figures are similar from all 3 so that suggests they are basically the same Crafty, but perhaps a different bench? You could look at the log files of the benchamrks, see what depths have been searched to in each position. The bench command specifies the depths for all 6 runs, the newer version sepecfifies lesser depths - take a look see... By the way, I'm interested in the 450MHz figures as I guess a PIII-600 would get pretty exactly 1/3rd more? So in the 330,000 - 350,000 range, as opposed to my 600MHz Athlon getting 420,000. How much do those Alpha's cost!?! ;) Owen
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.