Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:09:20 11/10/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 1999 at 04:45:53, Bernhard Bauer wrote: >On November 10, 1999 at 04:07:49, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On November 10, 1999 at 03:37:47, Bernhard Bauer wrote: >>>On November 09, 1999 at 17:17:06, James Robertson wrote: >>[snip] >>>I gave this position to crafty and did a search Nd5. Here are the results for >>>crafty16.19 and crafty17.0. >>> >>>Crafty16.19 >>>=========== >>> >>> 12-> 11.30 -0.07 1. Nd5 exd5 2. Bxf6 Bxf6 3. Qxh7+ Kf8 >>> 4. cxd5 d6 5. Bh5 Rc8 6. Nxf7 Nd7 7. >>> Ng5 Qc2 8. Ne6+ Ke7 9. Rd3 Qxa2 10. >>> Nxg7 >>> 13 27.83 0.13 1. Nd5 exd5 2. Bxf6 Bxf6 3. Qxh7+ Kf8 >>> 4. cxd5 d6 5. Bh5 Rc8 6. Nxf7 a5 7. >>> Qf5 Ba6 8. Rc1 Qxc1 9. Rxc1 Rxc1+ >>> 13-> 27.83 0.13 1. Nd5 exd5 2. Bxf6 Bxf6 3. Qxh7+ Kf8 >>> 4. cxd5 d6 5. Bh5 Rc8 6. Nxf7 a5 7. >>> Qf5 Ba6 8. Rc1 Qxc1 9. Rxc1 Rxc1+ >>> 14 44.83 ++ 1. Nd5!! >>> 14-> 1:18 0.52 1. Nd5 exd5 2. Bxf6 Bxf6 3. Qxh7+ Kf8 >>> 4. cxd5 d6 5. Bh5 Rc8 6. Nxf7 a5 7. >>> Qf5 Ba6 8. Rc1 Qxc1 9. Rxc1 Rxc1+ >>> 15 2:12 ++ 1. Nd5!! >>> 15-> 8:59 0.91 1. Nd5 exd5 2. Bxf6 Bxf6 3. Qxh7+ Kf8 >>> 4. cxd5 d6 5. Bh5 Rc8 6. Nxf7 a5 7. >>> Qf5 Ba6 8. Rc1 Qxc1 9. Rxc1 Rxc1+ >>> time=15:00 cpu=199% mat=0 n=476806687 fh=96% nps=529508 >>> ext-> checks=46001900 recaps=737487 pawns=154520 1rep=5107499 thrt:139967 >>> predicted=0 nodes=476806687 evals=31020644 >>> endgame tablebase-> probes done=0 successful=0 >>> SMP-> split=1274 stop=164 data=10/64 cpu=29:59 elap=15:00 >>> >>>and >>>crafty17.0 >>>========== >>> >>> 12-> 15.23 -0.67 1. Nd5 exd5 2. Bxf6 Bxf6 3. Qxh7+ Kf8 >>> 4. cxd5 d6 5. Bh5 Rc8 6. Nxf7 Nd7 7. >>> Ng5 Qc2 8. Ne6+ Ke7 9. Rd3 Qxa2 10. >>> Nxg7 >>> 13 30.92 -0.60 1. Nd5 exd5 2. Bxf6 Bxf6 3. Qxh7+ Kf8 >>> 4. cxd5 d6 5. Bh5 Rc8 6. Nxf7 a5 7. >>> Bg6 Qc5 8. e4 Nd7 >>> 13-> 30.92 -0.60 1. Nd5 exd5 2. Bxf6 Bxf6 3. Qxh7+ Kf8 >>> 4. cxd5 d6 5. Bh5 Rc8 6. Nxf7 a5 7. >>> Bg6 Qc5 8. e4 Nd7 >>> 14 46.22 ++ 1. Nd5!! >>> 14-> 1:35 -0.21 1. Nd5 exd5 2. Bxf6 Bxf6 3. Qxh7+ Kf8 >>> 4. cxd5 d6 5. Bh5 Rc8 6. Nxf7 a5 7. >>> Bg6 Qc5 8. e4 Nd7 >>> 15 3:43 0.00 1. Nd5 exd5 2. Bxf6 Bxf6 3. Qxh7+ Kf8 >>> 4. cxd5 d6 5. Bh5 Ke7 6. Nxf7 Rc8 7. >>> Qf5 Kf8 8. Qf4 Ke7 9. Qf5 >>> 15-> 3:43 0.00 1. Nd5 exd5 2. Bxf6 Bxf6 3. Qxh7+ Kf8 >>> 4. cxd5 d6 5. Bh5 Ke7 6. Nxf7 Rc8 7. >>> Qf5 Kf8 8. Qf4 Ke7 9. Qf5 >>> 16 10:51 0.00 1. Nd5 exd5 2. Bxf6 Bxf6 3. Qxh7+ Kf8 >>> 4. cxd5 d6 5. Bh5 Bxg5 6. Qh8+ Ke7 >>> 7. Qxg7 Rf8 8. Qxg5+ Ke8 9. Rc1 Qd8 >>> 10. Qf5 Nd7 11. a3 Qf6 >>> 16-> 10:51 0.00 1. Nd5 exd5 2. Bxf6 Bxf6 3. Qxh7+ Kf8 >>> 4. cxd5 d6 5. Bh5 Bxg5 6. Qh8+ Ke7 >>> 7. Qxg7 Rf8 8. Qxg5+ Ke8 9. Rc1 Qd8 >>> 10. Qf5 Nd7 11. a3 Qf6 >>>time=15:00 cpu=200% mat=0 n=314623673 fh=93% nps=349445 >>>ext-> checks=16736788 recaps=643735 pawns=162104 1rep=1411877 thrt:97472 >>>predicted=0 nodes=314623673 evals=206046602 >>>endgame tablebase-> probes done=0 successful=0 >>>hashing-> trans/ref=23% pawn=2% used=99% >>>SMP-> split=1349 stop=171 data=10/64 cpu=30:01 elap=15:00 >>> >>>Comparing these results show: >>> >>> Crafty16.19 Crafty17.0 >>>score(15) 0.91 0.0 >>>nps 529508 349445 >>> >>>So for this position crafty16.19 looks much better than crafty17.0. >>>Crafty17.0 is 34% slower than crafty16.19, not to mention the evaluation. >>>BTW computation was done on a 2xPIII 450MHz computer running WinNT4.0. >>Actually, crafty 17.0 beat the pants off of 16.19. It finished ply 15 at 3:43 >>compared to 8:59 so it looks to be much more than twice as fast. The nodes mean >>nothing compared to finishing a ply. > >IMHO finishing a ply means nothing compared to finding the right continuation. >Please note that crafty16.19 gives a different line which looks mutch better. >So I wouldn't say "crafty 17.0 beat the pants off of 16.19". Such a statement >looks somewhat superficial. >Anyway, up to now there is no known reason why the new crafty is significantly >slower than 16.19. See the current discussion at the crafty mailing list. >Kind regards >Bernhard As I mentioned on the mailing list, comparing NPS between two versions is a good idea, but _not_ with mt=2 enabled. There are too many variables, and the nps will vary significantly. mt=2 is the right way to _run_ tests, but it is the wrong way to run if you want to compare nps, or time to finish a ply. You have to run the same test dozens of times and take the average to get reasonable results...
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.