Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:35:29 02/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 24, 2004 at 14:43:05, Ed Panek wrote: >On February 24, 2004 at 14:21:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 24, 2004 at 13:43:41, Matthew Hull wrote: >> >>>On February 24, 2004 at 13:10:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On February 24, 2004 at 12:05:39, Ed Panek wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 23, 2004 at 23:29:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On February 23, 2004 at 16:12:49, Ed Panek wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On February 23, 2004 at 14:52:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On February 23, 2004 at 11:26:38, Ed Panek wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On February 23, 2004 at 11:09:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On February 23, 2004 at 10:45:47, Ed Panek wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>All, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I was wondering about trying something on ICC regarding playing a GM using >>>>>>>>>>>multiple computers and choosing moves based upon plurality of several engines >>>>>>>>>>>analyzing at once. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Do you think this is feasable on ICC? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I would front the $$ to obtain participation from the GM. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Ed >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>You have to do it manually. IE you log on, and with 2-3 computers behind you, >>>>>>>>>>you watch them and make the move of your choosing, then override the others so >>>>>>>>>>that they maintain the correct position. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Or you could use some sort of interface that lets you have different programs >>>>>>>>>>log on using different accounts, and they "observe" your account playing the GM. >>>>>>>>>> Then you can just watch their analysis and choose the move you like best, and >>>>>>>>>>they get forced to play the right move and follow the game automatically. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I'm not sure of the point in doing this, however.. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>It would be purely for entertainment value. It would not have to do with the >>>>>>>>>move I like best, but the move which has the most consensus among the 4 or 5 >>>>>>>>>programs. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Ed >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Something tells me that in tactical positions, they will almost agree perfectly, >>>>>>>>while in positional cases, each program will suggest a _different_ best move. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>:) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>What if I arranged a GM to play your 4 way opteron at standard times? Would you >>>>>>>be open to that idea? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Ed >>>>>> >>>>>>Perhaps, but it would take some preparation. IE I don't have a 4-way opteron at >>>>>>the moment, that machine was out at AMD, and they put in a DSL connection for me >>>>>>to access the machine. The DSL is gone. I could probably convince them to do >>>>>>it again... >>>>> >>>>>Thats fine. If you can obtain the use of the 4 way again, I will take care of >>>>>having a GM perform. Is that acceptable? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Thanks, >>>>> >>>>>Ed >>>> >>>> >>>>Sure. Give me some sort of target time-frame to ask for... >>> >>> >>>See if they'll let you use an 8 (or 16) this time. Could be some good marketing >>>spin for them if the match is advertised. >>> >>>:) >> >>There is a good chance for an 8-way box. I'm not sure if they have any 16-way >>boxes there, although they might approach Sun or another vendor that is going to >> ship them at some point in time.. > >8 way? How would the estimated performance of that be for crafty? > >ICC has been notified and they are helping obtain a GM with our terms. > > > >Ed Figure about 1.7 x faster in speedup compared to the quad opteron, also figure around 16-20M nodes per second. It will be a handful...
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.