Author: Amir Ban
Date: 16:17:34 10/31/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 31, 1999 at 17:19:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 31, 1999 at 16:49:30, Amir Ban wrote: > >>On October 31, 1999 at 14:20:23, blass uri wrote: >> >>>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. >>> >> >>Your argument is flawed, and you actually noticed it in your last paragraph. >> >>It's true that pondering is some compensation for being manual, but your game is >>as good as your weakest move. It won't help you to ponder on a move for 10 >>seconds if next move you guessed wrong and have to make a move in one second. >> >>Another obvious point is that games often last more than 60 moves, especially >>against an opponent who never takes a draw and often plays to mate. There's >>definite risk of losing on time, and my record against crafty has several losses >>on time in a won or drawn position. >> >>I don't make excuses for Junior. It was my decision to play this way, but, since >>you are carefully analyzing the true odds here, take all factors into account >>and make it realistic. >> >>Taking all into account, and correcting crafty's speed to 4x400, I think my >>original formula is sound and computes to about 1:4.5 CPU ratio. >> >>Amir > > >All I can say is that 4X400 = 4.5*(2X350) is _truly_ remarkable mathematics, >and I was a math major. I am afraid that had I told any math instructor I had >that 1600 == 4.5*700 I would have had to find another major. > It's spelled out above and also rather simple, but I think there's no way to make you understand what you don't want to. Amir >And I suspect that when you play crafty, your machine is _only_ playing crafty. >Mine might or might not be just playing chess. I can get hurt seriously by >other things, because crafty runs as a nice 20 process. Late at night, it is >doubtful it is doing anything else. From 8am-8am, it is guaranteed to be doing >something else a lot of the time, like compiling, testing, generating postscript >documents, running nfs performance tests, etc... I don't complain, I just let >it go... because that is "crafty"...
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.