Author: Bernhard Bauer
Date: 06:58:09 11/10/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 1999 at 09:09:20, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>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...
Agreed.
So I ran the position again with mt=1. Note that all moves were searched.
Crafty16.19 Crafty17.0
nps 232665 176095
total time 900 sec 900 sec
ply=8 17.2 sec 51.4 sec
ply=9 64 sec 109 sec
ply=10 171 sec 283 sec
ply=11 478 sec 784 sec
ply=12 834 sec not completed
By this data Crafty17.0 is 24 % slower than Crafty16.19.
Kind regards
Bernhard
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.