Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 05:34:50 04/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 11, 2003 at 08:28:55, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: note that they did internally count the number of searches done a second, because a hardware node would get aborted within 8000 searches of all other processors if it timed out. In short there must be a good reason they do not print it... >On April 10, 2003 at 17:33:49, Omid David Tabibi 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. >> >>You get a factor 2 speedup, so you don't need to waste time with forward >>pruning?? Beware Vincent, you are starting to sound like the IBM folks...! > >in fact i have more processors than that 28 node 120Mhz (and 2 nodes 135Mhz) IBM >machine had that ran deep blue hardware processors. Follow ups of this machine >got sold then 'based upon deep blue technology', though i would swear to you the >hard job was done by 480 hardware processors. It was NOT a shared memory machine >at all, because all nodes communicated via a high speed switch with each other. >So latency was poor to mention 1 problem of them with regards to parallel >speedup. > >I run on a 1024 processor machine, fastest machine in europe to run chess >software at and get 500 processors from that! > >In contradiction to deep blue the processors do not idle. > >Their speedup is based upon extrapolation of what the speedup is at a single >node. They measured what a single node with single hardware processor did >and compared that with what a single node did with 24 hardware processors. > >However the hard problem is the parallellization over nodes without shared >memory. In fact all it had was a highspeed switch. Not even routers seemingly. > >To quote them more or less: "due to time constraints the nullmove search was not >used" in deep blue hardware chips. > >I will not use that excuse 5 years after a match of diep versus some GM! > >Another werid thing is the number o fnodes a second. They cannot know it. their >logfiles show no evidence of anything how many nodes a second they got. You can >measure how many searches a second you do. They could know how much nodes a >single search is on average. They cannot know how the 'big machines' number of >nodes a second is. > >My estimate it 10 million nodes a second initially. Only in endgame perhaps 50 >million nodes a second. > >We know SE was more limited implemented than i have done it. Also forward >prunign was used in the hardware (no progress pruning for example). > >Their own estimation is a 8% speedup in tactical positions and 12% speedup in >quiet positions based upon 'indirect evidence'. > >That is a joke estimation IMHO. Show me the number of searches performed first, >because we all know the problems of an aphid type of parallel search. > >Best regards, >Vincent > > > >> >> >>> >>>>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
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.