Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 04:30:48 04/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 10, 2003 at 13:56:29, Keith Evans wrote:
>On April 10, 2003 at 13:42:09, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>>On April 10, 2003 at 13:36:55, Keith Evans wrote:
>>
>>>On April 10, 2003 at 12:44:46, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>
>>>>On April 10, 2003 at 12:39:59, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On April 10, 2003 at 12:02:05, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On April 10, 2003 at 11:37:50, Jonas Bylund wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On April 10, 2003 at 10:27:57, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On April 10, 2003 at 10:11:21, Jonas Cohonas wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On April 10, 2003 at 09:25:09, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On April 10, 2003 at 09:20:15, ERIQ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>These are all great goals, but I like this order better.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>* A Linux/bsd version of Chess Tiger w/ great gui ie. Eboard or better.
>>>>>>>>>>>* A native ARM version of Chess Tiger for Palm
>>>>>>>>>>>* Chess Tiger 16
>>>>>>>>>>>* ...and a few more projects that I prefer to keep secret
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>basis for order is:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>1.I will have a freebsd system running in about two week hopefully (just waiting
>>>>>>>>>>>on hardware to arrive)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>2.As soon as I could buy a new sony palm I will. So I can win a game from time
>>>>>>>>>>>to time :)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>3.And ct16 should be last because ct15 is already too strong!! whether it's
>>>>>>>>>>>first or last on that silly list that everone likes, I can't beat it on a 486
>>>>>>>>>>>comp. And yes I've tried shamlessly
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Just my two cents.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sign,
>>>>>>>>>>> Eriq
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>a dual version of CT15 would kick more butt than ct16 or working at the unknown
>>>>>>>>>>freebsd. note that freebsd allows multiprocessing but multithreading at it i
>>>>>>>>>>cannot advice.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I think a dual version of CTX would be great! maybe we should have a hands up
>>>>>>>>>here, to see if we can influence the order of things ;) (note: people with dual
>>>>>>>>>processor systems votes count double, ok maybe only 1.7 :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Jonas
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Some people are simply too lazy or have too much bugs in their software to get
>>>>>>>>stuff parallel well to work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It will be always like that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well i don't know where that came from, but i am quite sure that an accomplished
>>>>>>>programmer like CT would have no problems making Tiger SMP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>in which case he is just plain lazy now.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Vincent I have explained that I have other priorities.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why should I spend time on a task that I estimate is mostly a waste of time?
>>>>>
>>>>>Can you mention the benefits that has brought to you the multiprocesor version
>>>>>of Diep?
>>>>
>>>>i show up at 500 processors world champs 2003 to name one.
>>>>
>>>>other is that i don't need to waste my time with forward pruning because i get
>>>>already a factor 2 nearly out of SMP.
>>>>
>>>>>Have you won any tournament thanks to it? Has it improved your image, the
>>>>>perception of quality in the eye of your future customers? How much money (=fuel
>>>>>to continue improving your chess engine) have you made from it?
>>>>
>>>>It definitely will.
>>>>
>>>>Noomen has brought you a few victories at quick levels. Well done Christophe.
>>>>
>>>>>How can you justify that it has not been an almost complete waste of time?
>>>>> Christophe
>>>>
>>>>History will forget you. History won't forget me. You will see soon. So far SMP
>>>>was just a factor 1.5 speedup for most and 1.8 to 2.0 for some.
>>>>
>>>>But coming years the difference will be way more. Factors 4.0 to 8.0 will not
>>>>get uncommon. Just read my lips.
>>>>
>>>>In my case how about 500 cpus at europes fastest supercomputer for
>>>>computerchess?
>>>>
>>>>Now *that* is a bigger sales argument than you might think Christophe. Let's not
>>>>publicly discuss sales. But you know what i mean. I bet you want to exchange all
>>>>those tournament victories for just one shot at the title at a world
>>>>championship which simultaneously is also a shot to playing the FIDE world
>>>>champ!
>>>>
>>>>Best regards,
>>>>Vincent
>>>
>>>
>>>Vincent,
>>>
>>>You're using a 500 CPU system for performance, and you're worried about the cost
>>>of an SDRAM DIMM (or whatever type of memory) in a different thread...
>>>
>>>Wow!
>>
>>my thing is in software not hardware keith. If people buy my thing it is a
>>software cdrom. price matters there too if it is not too much. I can't ask $1000
>>for my thing if it is software. $250 would be outrageous too.
>>
>>But when we talk about hardware that everyone can buy, then price matters of
>>course.
>>
>>there is a big diff between software and hardware, and that's price.
>>
>>Whether i run on a dual K7 or a 500 processor, it is the same program. 500
>>processors simply speed you up more than 2. that's all.
>
>Well if you can keep the same executible then it could be a selling point. I was
>assuming that the 500 processor version would have some differences. Is the 500
>processor box running Windows? Linux?
there is only 2 differences between DIEP for windows and DIEP for IRIX.
a) the diep version for irix is compiled by other compiler, namely the
mipspro compiler instead of gcc or visual c++ (gcc is faster at K7 but
i didn't do effort yet to get it parallel to work under windows).
b) the diep version for irix has a slightly bigger stack allocated for
at maximum 512 cpu's instead of at maximum 8.
No other differences.
Perhaps i will modify something for P4 dual Xeon. Like testing whether i can let
threads idle when they have no job. Such things. If it speeds it up there then
it is 'if p4 then' ...
But that would be minor difference.
Most important if someone wants a diep version for irix, he doesn't need to pay
$2000 because of using hashtables, versus $500 for a version not using
hashtables.
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.