Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:03:08 10/31/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 31, 1999 at 17:26:46, Jeremiah Penery 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. > >Is Tim still using that super-fast Alpha processor for Lippy? That's nice and >fast. :) Yes, but it is a single cpu 667mhz machine that is faster (significantly) than my quad, so it blows hell out of the mhz/mhz comparison. :)
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.