Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:50:02 09/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 19, 2000 at 11:05:01, Frank Quisinsky wrote: >On September 19, 2000 at 10:16:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 19, 2000 at 01:37:39, Frank Quisinsky wrote: >> >>>Hello, >>> >>>which program can solved 9/14 positions (I think no program can solved so many >>>positions). Gandalf results, no 0 or 1 seconds results: >>> >>>01. 0578 seconds >>>02. 0980 seconds >>>03. 0386 seconds >>>04. 0449 seconds >>>05. 0205 seconds >>>06. 0252 seconds >>>07. 0711 seconds >>>08. 0486 seconds >>>09. --- >>>10. --- >>>11. 1151 seconds >>>12. --- >>>13. --- >>>14. with the right move in ~ 32 minutes ! >>> >>>BS2830 = 2667 ELO >>>LCTII = 2730 ELO >>> >>>In my eyes is Gandalf 4.32f the strongest program for analyses and maybe >>>the stronges chess programm in the world ? >>> >>>Best >>>Frank >> >>This has very little to do with how "strong" an engine is compared to others. >>It only means it solves _this_ problem set faster. > >Yes this is right. > >In my News Ticker I have 250 Gandalf games with longer time controls and ponder >! > >I am sure, I made a lot of tests with Gandalf in the last time. I think for >tactical and middelgame analyses is Gandalf a very good engine. OK, I know not >all commercial programs but I know a lof of results. > >BTW: >Crafty played very good against the playing style from Gandalf ! > >A questions to Crafty: >I see that Crafty 17.13 is not faster then Crafty 17.11 but the new SMP version >is faster. > >At the moment is the dual technic factor 1.8. Do you think that factor 1.9 or >1.95 is possible ? At times, 2.0 is possible. But even 1.8 is not always going to happen. I even have a position or two where 2 processors are _slower_ than one. > >I have interest to get more information why is not more then factor 1.8 >possible. I think a very interesting message for my News Ticker because more and >more persons have interest to buy a dual system an I think this is a interesting >question about SMP. Because move ordering is not perfect. If you start a parallel search at a ply where only one move needs to be searched, the extra processor is searching a part of the tree that a single processor program would not search due to an alpha/beta cutoff. Since move ordering is not perfect, it is impossible to accurately choose a position where all moves have to be searched, vs a position where only one move needs to be searched. As I have mentioned before, in Crafty, I am about 92% right. That is, if I am going to get a beta cutoff, 92% of the time it happens on the _first_ move searched at a ply. Unfortunately, that 8% where it is wrong is a real killer to parallel performance. Hence my 30% per processor overhead estimate. 1cpu = 1.0 speedup. 2cpu = 1.7 speedup, 3cpu = 2.4 speedup and 4 cpu = 3.1 speedup. All rough averages, actual numbers will vary wildly. > >See here (little zip file, Crafty bench results on dual and single PIII): >http://amateurschach.in-trier.de/schach/download/sonstige/crafty_bench2.zip > >Frank
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.