Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 09:28:29 07/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2004 at 12:19:24, Peter Berger wrote: >On July 14, 2004 at 11:41:04, Omid David Tabibi wrote: > >>On July 14, 2004 at 11:38:31, Peter Berger wrote: >> >>>On July 14, 2004 at 11:26:47, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>> >>>>On July 14, 2004 at 11:12:14, Fernando Villegas wrote: >>>> >>>>>Not at all, Omid >>>>>If you already have a parallel engine you should run it into a hardware capable >>>>>of getting all its power. >>>> >>>>I understand that you are going to provide the hardware, right? >>>> >>>>It is not something personal; next year I will have the needed hardware, but >>>>what about others? Deep Sjeng and ParSOS were also parallel engines, but ran on >>>>single processor not because they thought it was better, but because they did >>>>not have access to a fast multiprocessor machine. >>>> >>> >>>I wonder what except the results changed from two weeks ago to now to make you >>>imply this is an unfair event and go on raving about it ?! >>> >>>Weren't you even one of the organizers? >> >>Yes, and I complained loudly about it even before the event. > >Actually I still think this is argueing with hindsight. Diep and Crafty finished >3rd and 4th, a result that surprised some of the present programmers. > >It seemed to concern no one last year when it was only the professionals who >came with superior hardware. > >To quote another programmer from memory: "I typically get 80% in tests against >Crafty, so on a Quad it might get 30% or sth like that ". > >And we don't know how the results would have looked like in a single CPU event >either - before the tournament it was "Crafty is a miserable program that I can >beat on any hardware" (simplified and no quote) - This quote is not from me. >at least one part of this >statement turned out to be untrue. > >Maybe the hardware impact is a little overrated in this discussion anyway. Jonny >on a PIV2.8 e.g. nearly finished Junior on a Quad. You want to measure the hardware impact, just do the following: Run the Crafty benchmark at a fast single processor machine, and also on the quad machine: ratio = (benchmark on quad) / (benchmark on single proc) (the ratio would be about 4) Next, for each move of Crafty in the tournament, divide the thinking time by the 'ratio' above, to get a new time: time2 = (original time spent on the move) / ratio Now just count how many times Crafty changed its PV after 'time2'... (In other words, how many times Crafty changed its PV after thinking for 1/4 of the time on the move.) > > >> >> >>> >>>The multi-processor entries got the first 5 places in the tournament - this was >>>partly unexpected by some, probably including you. Had you been aware of it >>>before the event you probably would have tried to get better hardware in case >>>your engine can use it successfully. Every other answer is a bit hard to believe >>>for me. >>> >>>Peter
This page took 0.02 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.