Author: blass uri
Date: 11:20:23 10/31/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 31, 1999 at 13:57:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 31, 1999 at 11:53:38, blass uri wrote: > >>On October 31, 1999 at 10:12:06, Amir Ban 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. >>>>> >>>>>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. :) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Christophe >>> >>> >>>That's approximately the speed advantage in crafty vs. ban on ICC (that is, >>>pre-noplaying and censoring): >>> >>>4 x 450 MHz at 5 + 3 inc vs. 2 x 350 MHz at 5 + (-1) (that's my setting because >>>I'm manual). If the game lasts 60 moves that translates to: >>> >>> >>> (1800 MHz * 8 min) / (700 MHz * 4 min) > 5 >> >>It is not exactly the case because crafty has not >5 times advantage in >>pondering. >> >>Crafty can ponder 8 minutes when Junior can ponder the time that it does not >>play (16-4 minutes=12 minutes) >> >>Uri >> > >it is all bad math. The quad xeon runs (generally) a little over 3x faster >than a single xeon would. There are many positions where it runs 4x faster, >there are some where it is actually slower than a single processor. > >But in general, it is 3x faster. Amir is running on a dual 350, which is fairly >close to 1/2 the xeon. The speed advantage is a little over 2, assuming his >speedup for 2 is similar to mine. I have no idea how he would conclude anything >greater. > >If he plays someone on a single cpu at 800 mhz, how much faster is that machine >than his? I get 800/350 as a quantum estimate. But I would want benchmark >numbers to be really happy, because the 800mhz box might have a memory bandwidth >problem. Or a 133mhz bus advantage. It is more than 800/350 because the fact you play manually is a disadvabtage. The fact that you can use the permanent brain does not fully compensate for the time advantage. simple math say if you assume ponder guessing of 50%,8 minutes/game(Junior is using only 4 minutes for playing) and every player is using 1/2 of the time that it does not use for playing and correct in pondering. Junior is using 4 minutes+1/2*12 minutes=4+6=10 minutes. crafty is using 8 minutes+1/2*8 minutes=12 minutes. This is practically more than 12/10 time advantage because it is better to use x seconds for every move than to use x/2 seconds when you are wrong in pondering and 3x/2 when you are right in pondering. Uri
This page took 0.01 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.