Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 01:40:09 10/31/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 31, 1999 at 04:04:41, Peter McKenzie wrote: >On October 31, 1999 at 02:28:52, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On October 31, 1999 at 00:02:37, Peter McKenzie wrote: >> >>>On October 30, 1999 at 17:52:02, Christophe Theron wrote: >>> >>>>On October 30, 1999 at 08:22:00, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>>> >>>>>I have played 2 matches at game/5 between Tiger 12.0 and Crafty 16.18 as an >>>>>engine for Fritz. >>> >>>You played crafty under Fritz? Not a great start for a 'scientific' >>> experiment. >> >>What's the problem? > >I was assuming (possibly incorrectly) that Enrique meant it was crafty under >Fritz using the Fritz winboard adaptor. The Fritz implementation of the >winboard protocol is somewhat unusual. I believe the effect of it is to clear >the hash tables before each move. Who knows what other weird side effects there >are: my engine which works fine under winboard doesn't even work under Fritz. I >doubt that Bob has even once tested crafty under Fritz. > >Is there a 'native Fritz' crafty engine? If so, I guess it would be more >reliable but it was probably converted to a Fritz engine by the chessbase people >so who knows whether they got it 100% right. I didn't use CB's winboard adaptor but a Crafty 16.18 engine as a "native" engine for Fritz. It does not clear hashtables with new move. I assumed that a Crafty 16.18 is a Crafty 16.18. I guess that only Bob and Mathias Feist can say if this is true or not. Aside from this, I didn't claim that my match was a "scientific" experiment, as you say. I wanted to see who would win a blitz match and the effect of playing with PB on/off, after the discussion about this topic a few weeks ago. Enrique >>>>>Crafty played on a PIII-500, 64MB hashtables, the Nalimov tablebases that come >>>>>with Fritz and the General book of Fritz 5 built after games of 2500+ players. >>>>> >>>>>Tiger 12.0 played on a PII-300, 32MB hashtables and the small book of Tiger 11.7 >>>>>with only 35000 positions. >>>> >>>>Oops... Not exactly. >>>> >>>>This book indeed comes from the first versions of Tiger 11.x but it contains >>>>only 7682 moves. >>>> >>>>This is 35 times smaller than the current book provided with Tiger 12.0. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I used this book to compensate for Crafty not using >>>>>its own. It was not uncommon to see Tiger out of book after 2, 3 or 4 moves. I >>>>>don't think that the book gave Tiger any kind of advantage. >>>>> >>>>>In the first match, Tiger won 25-13, +19 -7 =12, scoring 65.7% >>>> >>>>Wow! What elo rating difference would that mean? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>The second match was played under the same conditions, except that Tiger had PB >>>>>off. In this second match, Tiger won 23-21, +16 -14 =14, scoring 52.2%. >>>>> >>>>>Going back to the discussion of a few weeks ago about PB on/off, these 2 matches >>>>>seem to indicate that PB off is not more detrimental than what could be expected >>>>>by just not using the usual 50% of the opponent's time. >>>>> >>>>>The delay in transmitting the moves through auto232 is almost 3 seconds/move for >>>>>the dos driver and about 2/10 for the windows driver. Considering that the >>>>>average in these matches is 79 moves/game, each game lasted 14 minutes instead >>>>>of 10. Assuming that both programs guessed 50% of the opponent's moves, Tiger >>>>>and Crafty used 9.5 minutes/game (5 + 4.5) each with PB on, while in the second >>>>>match Tiger used 5 minutes/game. It is as if Tiger would have played the first >>>>>match on a P300 and the second on a P150. All this mess (sorry) makes the >>>>>results of both matches quite coherent. >>>>> >>>>>I tried all this PB on/off thing in a different way. Didzis plays with 2 >>>>>programs on one machine and PB off. I replayed with 2 machines one of his games >>>>>Tiger-CM6K and both programs played the same moves. >>>>> >>>>>So it seems that for some programs playing with PB off has no other effect than >>>>>having less time to compute. >>>> >>>> >>>>Also it seems that a crippled Tiger is still better than a full strength Crafty >>>>(PII-300/small book against PIII-500). >>>> >>>>And it seems that a crippled crippled Tiger is still at least as strong as a >>>>full strength Crafty (PII-300/PB off/small book against PIII-500). >>>> >>>>I find this interesting as some time ago Bob was laughing at me because I'm >>>>still using a 386sx20 for some of my tests and algorithmic improvements. >>>> >>>>I would not be surprised if Chess Tiger 12.0 on PII-300 was able to stand Crafty >>>>on a Quad-Xeon. After all that would only be a 4x speed advantage for Crafty. :) >>>> >>> >>>You talk the talk, but can you walk the walk? >>>I'll look forward to seeing tiger on ICC. >> >>I'll do when I have some free time. >> >>Is there something in what I say you don't find reasonnable? > >To be honest I find the tone of your post somewhat distasteful. > >> >>Tiger was able to win a blitz match with something close to a 3x speed handicap. >>Do you think the Quad-Xeon computes more than 3 times faster than a PII-300? >>Don't forget to take into account what you lose of the original speed with a >>parallel search. >> >> >> >> Christophe
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.