Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:52:50 11/10/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 1999 at 19:36:32, James Robertson wrote: >On November 10, 1999 at 16:43:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 10, 1999 at 09:58:09, Bernhard Bauer wrote: >> >>>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 >> >> >>What does the position look like? 16.19 had a very coarse transition from >>opening to middlegame, while 17.0 is very smooth. But it means that in some >>positions, 17.0 is using EvaluateDevelopment() where 16.19 would not... > >The position is late opening, with white having a positional advantage based >mostly on his superior development.... > >James Try something where _both_ sides have castled. You might be simply hitting on a significant difference in the eval logic (development) between 16.19 and 17.0...
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.