autochess

[yacp1]

Please tell me which are the best parameters and the best technical support (processor, RAM, etc) in order to get the highest performance with Fritz 11.

For instance, which engine, which Openings Book, and which others features do you recommend?

PS I'am not interested in playing with an YaY table or so.

[m.t_mode]

Hello,

Firstly, I want you to know that I cannot advise you a CPU, no one can. If you can afford, get the best CPU. If I'm not mistaken, the best processor for the time being is Q6600 QUAD CORE 2.4Ghz 8MB CACHE 1066FSB 65NM. It's the same thing for RAM as well. Get the best one you can.

Then engines, the dominating champion of the engines world is Rybka 3 for sure. Eliasgino2007 or pollo11 can send you all the versions of it.

Books...every player has his/her own book, they develop it over time, and its size reaches to gigabytes. Every chess player is his own book maker. However, if you dont have any book, you can get a good one such as Rybka 3.ctg thanks to our friends, just PM.

And finally parameters, every user sets his engine's parameters according to himself, everyone's needs are different. If you were playing a game of 1/2 mins, you'd probably set your engine's playing speed to ultrafast. If you have enough time, you can tell your engine to play intelligently. And sometimes it's better not to touch the parameters at all.

For your information, if you really want to be a strong player, you need some big database & tablebases. Also, dont forget to set your hash size according to your computer's RAM amount, keep your OS up-to-date, regularly optimize and tweak your system and so on... For a detailed information on such things and to get the bases, just look around in the forum.

Good luck.

[aks21155]

u r using window vista there is a function for boosting performance.the moment u insert ur pend drive (blank) it will ask that.the same think is in rebka 3 engine.it will take 5 min to write hash tables but after that it will use that memory .after ur book ends
good luck and have fun with chess

[Moheevi_chess]

If I were you I would wait until Intel's Nehalem comes out. It is supposed to come out soon and that will make some of the higher priced quads cheaper. But if you can't w8 and you have enough money I would get 2X Q9775 in a skull trail setup:). (For around $10k+) For ram...get the fastest ram possible, if you are running vista I would advise at least 2GB ram. For the hard drive- 2X15000rpm HD's hooked up into raid 0.

[dene]

Theres no way I personally would spend 10k on a quad based skulltrail setup now, not when it would go out of date soon. If you really want a 2x cpu set up, then I recommend waiting for at least the forthcoming 8 core cpu's and then run 2 of those on a dual socket motherboard (skulltrail 2?) ... this will give you 16 cores

[matematiko]

I can not even afford a 15,000 RPM hard drive, much less a skulltrail set up. Then, if I was able to afford me one, I woudnt be wasting my time in Yahoo. I'd will be at PCC where the "big boys" play.

I think the kind of advice we should give here is the one that gives you the best performance/investment ratio, and for that IMHO, the q6600 is the king.

I own a qx9650, five times more expensive than a q6600, and to tell you the truth the only advantage I see in owning one of these is that I don't have to push it very hard voltage wise.

Instead of spending money in a high end processor, I would get me a q6600, a nice computer case with good air flow, a good water cooling system and a good motherboard with excellent overclocking functions and perhaps DDR3 capabilities. If there is any money left then I would also get me a 10,000 RPM Hard Drive or two in a raid array.

Just my opinion, cheers,

[mocha_1961]

I can not even afford a 15,000 RPM hard drive, much less a skulltrail set up. Then, if I was able to afford me one, I woudnt be wasting my time in Yahoo. I'd will be at PCC where the "big boys" play.

I think the kind of advice we should give here is the one that gives you the best performance/investment ratio, and for that IMHO, the q6600 is the king.

I own a qx9650, five times more expensive than a q6600, and to tell you the truth the only advantage I see in owning one of these is that I don't have to push it very hard voltage wise.

Instead of spending money in a high end processor, I would get me a q6600, a nice computer case with good air flow, a good water cooling system and a good motherboard with excellent overclocking functions and perhaps DDR3 capabilities. If there is any money left then I would also get me a 10,000 RPM Hard Drive or two in a raid array.

Just my opinion, cheers,

i second the motion. a 10k rpm hard drive is good for your tablebase [img]

[Moheevi_chess]

A Q6600 will put you on the same playing level as someone with a Q9775. In my experience, quad vs quad or quad vs 8core/16core depends mostly on the opening book (rybka vs rybka of course). It might be different with rybka 3 though, I haven't been on PCC for awhile due to slow internet here in the dorms. Although I expect it isn't much different, if you come out of the book in good position and score after 15 moves or so then you will be able to win vs 8/16 core.

With rybka 2.3.2a my quad was getting maybe 1 less depth on most moves then the 8/16 core users.

[dene]

Rybka 3 scales alot better than Rybka 2 on 8 cores and above, so I think you will find the extra cores make more difference now. Also the engine is so strong now that in certain bad opening positions it seems to be able to turn the game around against weaker hardware more often than Rybka 2 could from what ive seen. I have to agree though, spending thousands on a system that will quickly go out of date is crazy, and matematiko is spot on when he says a Q6600 based quad is the best bang per buck!

[Prima]

Rybka 3 scales alot better than Rybka 2 on 8 cores and above, so I think you will find the extra cores make more difference now. Also the engine is so strong now that in certain bad opening positions it seems to be able to turn the game around against weaker hardware more often than Rybka 2 could from what ive seen. I have to agree though, spending thousands on a system that will quickly go out of date is crazy, and matematiko is spot on when he says a Q6600 based quad is the best bang per buck!

Hi all,

Well dene and matematiko, what do you all think of Windows Vista, Quad Core 64-bit OPs, Q6700 Series coupled with 6144MB of System Memory and 750GB of Hard Drive? Is this better compared to the Q6600 Series?

I'm trying to decide which is better to buy before the nahalem version is out. Besides that, I'm getting "personally owned" anyhow, anyway, and everywhere (with my current Windows XP) when using Rybka 3 mp + Fritz 10 and/or 11 GUIs.



Thanks,

Prima.

[matematiko]

Well dene and matematiko, what do you all think of Windows Vista, Quad Core 64-bit OPs, Q6700 Series coupled with 6144MB of System Memory and 750GB of Hard Drive? Is this better compared to the Q6600 Series?

Everybody, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

As far as I know, a q6600 is almost exactly the same as a q6700. They both have the same L2 cache. They both were built using the same technology. There are only two differences. The first one is the multiplier and the second one is the price.

A q6600 has a 9 multiplier and a q6700 has a 10 multiplier.

These CPUs where made for a 1066 Mhz FSB. Intel's motherboards send 4 bits of information for ever clock pulse, therefore a so called 1066 Mhz FSB is in reality runing at 267 Mghz (266.66 X 4 = 1066.66). So, at stock speeds (meaning that the motherboard is running at a FSB of 266.66:
- A q6600 will be running at 266.66 X 9 = 2,400 Mhz = 2.4 Ghz
- A q6700 will be running at 266.66 X 10 = 2,666.66 Mhz = 2.66 Ghz

Both CPUS can reach, lets say, 3.2 Ghz, to do this, for the:
-q6600, the FSB needs to be bumped to 355.55 Mhz (355.55Mhz X 9 = 3200 Mhz = 3.2 Ghz)
-q6700, the FSB needs to be bumped to 320.00 Mhz (320.00Mhz x 10= 3200 Mhz = 3.2 Ghz)

This difference in FSB requiered makes the q6700 less vCORE hungry which reduces the CORES temperatures and the electromagnetic fatigue effect which in turn enhances its life expectancy and this is the only difference (besides the price) I see between these two CPUs.

Cheers,

[dene]

Everybody, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

As far as I know, a q6600 is almost exactly the same as a q6700. They both have the same L2 cache. They both were built using the same technology. There are only two differences. The first one is the multiplier and the second one is the price.

A q6600 has a 9 multiplier and a q6700 has a 10 multiplier.

These CPUs where made for a 1066 Mhz FSB. Intel's motherboards send 4 bits of information for ever clock pulse, therefore a so called 1066 Mhz FSB is in reality runing at 267 Mghz (266.66 X 4 = 1066.66). So, at stock speeds (meaning that the motherboard is running at a FSB of 266.66:
- A q6600 will be running at 266.66 X 9 = 2,400 Mhz = 2.4 Ghz
- A q6700 will be running at 266.66 X 10 = 2,666.66 Mhz = 2.66 Ghz

Both CPUS can reach, lets say, 3.2 Ghz, to do this, for the:
-q6600, the FSB needs to be bumped to 355.55 Mhz (355.55Mhz X 9 = 3200 Mhz = 3.2 Ghz)
-q6700, the FSB needs to be bumped to 320.00 Mhz (320.00Mhz x 10= 3200 Mhz = 3.2 Ghz)

This difference in FSB requiered makes the q6700 less vCORE hungry which reduces the CORES temperatures and the electromagnetic fatigue effect which in turn enhances its life expectancy and this is the only difference (besides the price) I see between these two CPUs.

Cheers,

Sounds about right to me.

Depending on the price difference between the 2 cpu's, I think I would save some money and go for the Q6600. With good air cooling (case and cpu) the GO stepping version will do between 3.2 and 3.6ghz. Just make sure you get a good motherboard for overclocking. Thats the other difference between the 2 cpu's, for the Q6600 to reach beyond 3.2ghz you need a motherboard that can handle high FSB clocks more than you do with the Q6700. For example, some motherborads wont go much higher than 350FSB without upping the MCH (northbridge) voltage and the VTT on the board, which means you'll have to know a little bit more about overclocking and change more settings in the bios to get good clocks, ..so choose your board well.


"]

Well dene and matematiko, what do you all think of Windows Vista, Quad Core 64-bit OPs, Q6700 Series coupled with 6144MB of System Memory and 750GB of Hard Drive? Is this better compared to the Q6600 Series?

I recommend:
Q6600 cpu

4GB of ddr2 memory (2x 2GB) -you dont need more than that, and more than 2 sticks of ram can sometimes hinder your overclock, as it puts a lot of stress on the northbridge.

Windows Vista Home Premium 64Bit OEM operating system

A motherboard thats good for overclocking - research this, ..google is your friend here!

2 hard drives. A big one like the 750gb one you mentioned for storage, with a partition made (say 100GB) for an operating system install you can use for everyday use. A fast hard drive such as a WD raptor for a windows install just for chess etc.

A good PSU, such as a corsair one (at least 500 -600watts) - never skimp on the PSU, its important for a stable system.

Regards

[Moheevi_chess]

Most Q6600's are able to reach 3.2 GHz there are only a few out there that won't. But you most likely won't get a G0 you'll probably get a B3 stepping Q6600. If you get a G0 ordering from a mass producer you are very lucky.

[dene]

Note this: SLACR Stepping, 95W

95W = GO
130W = B3

If you buy from a seller advertising as 95W CPU and get a B3 you are entitled to send it back for one as advertised (95W)

A lot of online suppliers state its the 95W cpu on the website

[Prima]

Well dene and matematiko, what do you all think of Windows Vista, Quad Core 64-bit OPs, Q6700 Series coupled with 6144MB of System Memory and 750GB of Hard Drive? Is this better compared to the Q6600 Series?

Everybody, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

As far as I know, a q6600 is almost exactly the same as a q6700. They both have the same L2 cache. They both were built using the same technology. There are only two differences. The first one is the multiplier and the second one is the price.

A q6600 has a 9 multiplier and a q6700 has a 10 multiplier.

These CPUs where made for a 1066 Mhz FSB. Intel's motherboards send 4 bits of information for ever clock pulse, therefore a so called 1066 Mhz FSB is in reality runing at 267 Mghz (266.66 X 4 = 1066.66). So, at stock speeds (meaning that the motherboard is running at a FSB of 266.66:
- A q6600 will be running at 266.66 X 9 = 2,400 Mhz = 2.4 Ghz
- A q6700 will be running at 266.66 X 10 = 2,666.66 Mhz = 2.66 Ghz

Both CPUS can reach, lets say, 3.2 Ghz, to do this, for the:
-q6600, the FSB needs to be bumped to 355.55 Mhz (355.55Mhz X 9 = 3200 Mhz = 3.2 Ghz)
-q6700, the FSB needs to be bumped to 320.00 Mhz (320.00Mhz x 10= 3200 Mhz = 3.2 Ghz)

This difference in FSB requiered makes the q6700 less vCORE hungry which reduces the CORES temperatures and the electromagnetic fatigue effect which in turn enhances its life expectancy and this is the only difference (besides the price) I see between these two CPUs.

Cheers,

Everybody, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

As far as I know, a q6600 is almost exactly the same as a q6700. They both have the same L2 cache. They both were built using the same technology. There are only two differences. The first one is the multiplier and the second one is the price.

A q6600 has a 9 multiplier and a q6700 has a 10 multiplier.

These CPUs where made for a 1066 Mhz FSB. Intel's motherboards send 4 bits of information for ever clock pulse, therefore a so called 1066 Mhz FSB is in reality runing at 267 Mghz (266.66 X 4 = 1066.66). So, at stock speeds (meaning that the motherboard is running at a FSB of 266.66:
- A q6600 will be running at 266.66 X 9 = 2,400 Mhz = 2.4 Ghz
- A q6700 will be running at 266.66 X 10 = 2,666.66 Mhz = 2.66 Ghz

Both CPUS can reach, lets say, 3.2 Ghz, to do this, for the:
-q6600, the FSB needs to be bumped to 355.55 Mhz (355.55Mhz X 9 = 3200 Mhz = 3.2 Ghz)
-q6700, the FSB needs to be bumped to 320.00 Mhz (320.00Mhz x 10= 3200 Mhz = 3.2 Ghz)

This difference in FSB requiered makes the q6700 less vCORE hungry which reduces the CORES temperatures and the electromagnetic fatigue effect which in turn enhances its life expectancy and this is the only difference (besides the price) I see between these two CPUs.

Cheers,

Sounds about right to me.

Depending on the price difference between the 2 cpu's, I think I would save some money and go for the Q6600. With good air cooling (case and cpu) the GO stepping version will do between 3.2 and 3.6ghz. Just make sure you get a good motherboard for overclocking. Thats the other difference between the 2 cpu's, for the Q6600 to reach beyond 3.2ghz you need a motherboard that can handle high FSB clocks more than you do with the Q6700. For example, some motherborads wont go much higher than 350FSB without upping the MCH (northbridge) voltage and the VTT on the board, which means you'll have to know a little bit more about overclocking and change more settings in the bios to get good clocks, ..so choose your board well.


"]

Well dene and matematiko, what do you all think of Windows Vista, Quad Core 64-bit OPs, Q6700 Series coupled with 6144MB of System Memory and 750GB of Hard Drive? Is this better compared to the Q6600 Series?

I recommend:
Q6600 cpu

4GB of ddr2 memory (2x 2GB) -you dont need more than that, and more than 2 sticks of ram can sometimes hinder your overclock, as it puts a lot of stress on the northbridge.

Windows Vista Home Premium 64Bit OEM operating system

A motherboard thats good for overclocking - research this, ..google is your friend here!

2 hard drives. A big one like the 750gb one you mentioned for storage, with a partition made (say 100GB) for an operating system install you can use for everyday use. A fast hard drive such as a WD raptor for a windows install just for chess etc.

A good PSU, such as a corsair one (at least 500 -600watts) - never skimp on the PSU, its important for a stable system.

Regards

Thanks Friends,

I already bought the Intel Core 2 Quad Processor Q6700 Series - Windows Vista 64-bit OPs, along with the two(2) types of Gigabyte-Hard Drives I mentioned earlier.
I bought this series because it had more RAMs (or Memory-Hard Drive) than the Q6600, albeit a little more pricy as you both stated. As for the MotherBoard, I'll look into it to see if it's configurable (though I'm not a big fan of Over Clocking, no matter how safe).

One more thing, the windows vista 64 bit OP differs a lot from the windows xp I'm used to, including paths / directory, icons, file names etc. It's like having to re-learn the entire PC system all over again, and quite frankly, I think the windows vista OPs are harder to operate compared to windows xp.

Prima.