Author: martin fierz
Date: 05:54:12 05/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 2004 at 07:23:40, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On May 05, 2004 at 05:10:36, martin fierz wrote: > >>hi bob, >> >>rereading your DTS paper (you sent me a copy once), you reported 24 speedup >>numbers for 4 processors (given in the end, for anybody interested). >> >>i get (using a black box): >> >>av. speedup: 3.65 >>standard deviation of sample: 0.31 >>standard error of average 0.064 >> >>so: average speedup(N=4) = 3.65 +- 0.07 would be a nice way to put this. > >i have all dts numbers in an excel sheet with search times and node counts. > >that's easier to do statistics with. > hi vincent, yes, i'd like the spreadsheet if you still have it. could you send it to me? i'm not interested in the full output, just the speedup numbers will do. cheers martin >>for those who don't have the paper, this was done on a cray, so it's not >>comparable to crafty on an average N-way box you might have (and methinks this >>experiment was done with cray blitz). >> >>this leads to two follow-up questions: >>1) where does the 3.1 for crafty come from you usually quote? did you ever >>publish a similar set of numbers for crafty? any .pdf / .ps to download for >>that? where do the numbers 2.8 / 3.0 of vincent+GCP come from? how many >>positions were in that test? > >30 positions tested by GCP. I still have the outputs if you want them > >>2) can you give a similar error estimate for the 3.1 number (both std. dev and >>std. error)? or even better, a full set of numbers so that i can do with them >>whatever i want, since you seem so reluctant to compute std/ste? :-) >>3) right, question 3 of 2 :-): you claimed somewhere deep down in the other >>thread that it matters whether you look at related or unrelated positions. you >>could prove/disprove this experimentally with a set of related positions (eg >>from games of crafty on ICC) vs. a large test set (e.g. WAC). >> >>why is this important? without error estimates, you can discuss forever whether >>2.8/3.0 are the same as 3.1. without hard data on 3) you can also discuss >>forever whether the issue in 3) matters or not, and if it does, in what way and >>how important it is. >> >>this is a simple experiment to do, and since my profession is about measuring >>numbers i don't understand that you don't do it ;-) >> >>cheers >> martin >> >> >>results in table 4 for 4 processors: >>3.4 >>3.6 >>3.7 >>3.9 >>3.6 >>3.7 >>3.6 >>3.7 >>3.6 >>3.8 >>3.7 >>3.8 >>3.8 >>3.5 >>3.7 >>3.9 >>2.6 >>2.9 >>3.8 >>3.9 >>4.0 >>3.7 >>3.8 >>3.9
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.