Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 09:56:10 07/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2004 at 12:34:18, Peter Berger wrote: >On July 14, 2004 at 12:28:29, Omid David Tabibi wrote: > >>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. > >And I didn't imply any different. > >> >> >>>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.) > >This test sounds more scientific and logical than it is. You also would have to >identify the moves that would make any difference to the result of the game. > >I can easily reproduce all critical moves of the Falcon-Crafty game on my >notebook for black. I already asked you in another message if more time would >have made any difference for Falcon for two of its critical mistakes - you >didn't answer yet. Just count the number of times Crafty changed the PV after 1/4 of its thinking time (including pondering), and see how many of them were critical, and prevented a loss. You will find many of them. Here is one I remember clearly: After Falcon's ...Ra5 in the endgame, Crafty wanted to repeat the position at first (score: 0.00). It thought for a long time, and then changed the PV to other move, which was winning. But you will find many other moves in the earlier stage of the game, which would have resulted in a loss were they played (after thinking for 1/4 of the time).
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.