Author: Dagh Nielsen
Date: 07:31:10 12/01/05
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Vincent, that's exactly what I'm dreaming of too (even choice of engines :-), but it looks like 4 cpu machines today are still terribly expensive. Like, 2 x Opteron 275 (= 4 cores) and we're already speaking of about 2000 dollars just for the processors. I have read that AMD plans to introduce quad core processors in 2007, so maybe prices will get human then, at least I hope so. Regards, Dagh Nielsen On December 01, 2005 at 05:15:39, Vincent Lejeune wrote: > > Like for other engines, you have to know his strengh and his weaknesses to use >it at best as possible. To analyse games I recommend you to use a 4 cpu machine >with 4 engines at same time (my prefered set would be : Shredder 9 (soon 10) + >TogaII 1.1 (or fruit 2.2) + Fritz 9 + Hiarcs 10) > >On December 01, 2005 at 04:00:30, Mig Greengard wrote: > >>3n3k/bp3pp1/8/8/R1Q2R2/6p1/B2p1PP1/q1rn2K1 w - - 0 1 >> >>Plokhodnikov, 1971 >> >>Was somewhat surprised to find that most engines need a while to solve this >>puzzle since every move is a check. More than a minute, over five minutes in >>some cases. I think Toga II 1.1 was the fastest, solving it on my Athlon 64 3800 >>in around 40 seconds. (The original composition was given as mate in 21, but the >>comps find a faster way.) >> >>I'm not an unreserved fan of this engine yet, but it is intriguing and well >>worth a look beyond its scores against other programs (yes, there is such a >>thing). It certainly doesn't seem worse than the other top programs. Since 99% >>of my program usage is as an analytical assistant for GM games for reports and >>newsletters, I mostly want fast tactics as I favor my own positional eval. In >>this I don't find Toga better than Junior 9, inferior in most cases when it >>comes to suggesting interesting tactical lines, Junior's specialty. >> >>It is quite good in endgames for an engine despite apparently not accessing EGTB >>in the search. Does its cousin Fruit 2.2 do this? Probably not particularly >>relevant in play but it's essential for better endgame analysis. (e.g. >>Minasian-van Wely from the first round in the FIDE World Cup the other day. Toga >>has no idea that endgame is totally drawn, even when it's down to bishops.) >> >>Like many players I know, I have my own informal test suite I use to evaluate >>both new programs and new hardware. They are mostly games I have annotated >>deeply (and/or have been so annotated by others) and know very well, and it's >>useful to see if new engines find the best moves or see the value of certain >>paradoxical ideas. And also how long it takes, of course, since speed is of the >>essence in a working environment. I've found the latest editions of Kasparov's >>"My Great Predecessors" books handy for this because he and his team also >>thoroughly computer-check lines. (Famously not so well in Vol. 1.) This avoids >>annoying refutations and Garry is also more interested in pointing out good >>moves that aren't just flashy tactics a computer finds instantly. A good test >>suite can be made just by thumbing through the books and looking for exclam >>moves. >> >>What are the most highly recommended positional test suites in circulation, btw?
This page took 0.01 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.