Author: Sean Empey
Date: 15:00:44 07/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2004 at 17:47:43, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >On July 14, 2004 at 17:38:45, Sean Empey wrote: > >>On July 14, 2004 at 17:15:52, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >> >>>On July 14, 2004 at 17:10:13, Matthew Hull wrote: >>> >>>>On July 14, 2004 at 17:03:33, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 14, 2004 at 17:00:04, Matthew Hull wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 14, 2004 at 16:53:39, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On July 14, 2004 at 16:44:00, Peter Berger wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On July 14, 2004 at 12:56:10, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>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). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I think you maybe misunderstood me here because of the heat of the >>>>>>discussion. >>That I can easily reproduce Crafty's moves on my notebook >>>>doesn't >>mean that all >>its moves were found fast and easily :). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>From memory there were two moves in the tournament where Crafty changed its >>>>>>mind >>very late and that turned out to be of big importance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Kb6 (or whatever the move after Falcon's Ra5, no surprise that we both >>>>>>remember >>this one) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>OK, so at least you agree that without the 4x hardware advantage Crafty >>>>>>wouldn't >have got more than a draw. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and g5 in the game against Diep. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In case there were other moves like that, I am at least not aware of it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I expect Bob to offer Crafty's logfiles for download soon as he did for >>>>>>cct-6, >>so maybe we should delay this discussion until we can just discuss >>>>the >>real data >>( I don't have access to the Opteron anymore). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I would still be interested to know about the critical points from >>>>Falcon's >>>>side; Ra5 is a trial to avoid repetition - you have to search very >>>>deep to >>>>dismiss it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>One iteration deeper Falcon switches to the other move which results in >>>>actual >>>threefold repetition. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>In other words, had Crafty not had the hardware advantage it would have >>>>missed >>>the win, and had Falcon had the 4x hardware it would have found the >>>>correct >>draw >(and with that hardware advantage probably also found a correct >>>>winning >>line). >Right? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Why don't you just test it. Download crafty19.15 and setup the appropriate >>>>>>time controls for each side and start from some move in the actual game. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Then we won't be in fantasy land anymore, but in the land of fact. >>>>> >>>>>It is not fantasy. During the actual game Crafty found the correct move in the >>>>>endgame after a very long search (previous best move was threefold >>>>repetition). >Peter was the operator, and has said the same in the post above. >>>>Quoting him: > >>>>>"From memory there were two moves in the tournament where Crafty changed its >>>>>mind very late and that turned out to be of big importance. Kb6 (or whatever >>>>the >move after Falcon's Ra5, no surprise that we both remember this one)" >>>> >>>> >>>>No, I meant that Falcon could find _winning_ lines, not just drawing lines. >>> >>>I will try the game to see if there was a clear winning line. But it is clear >>>that on equal hardware white would not have lost the game. >> >>That's not clear until you can also prove Crafty would not have found that move >>on a single processor. And Falcon could actually win the game. You need data to >>back that claim up. > >Why don't you read other posts in the thread before asking a question already >discussed elsewhere? > >See for example the discussion between Peter Berger (operator of Crafty) and me: > >http://talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?376835 >http://talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?376837 >http://talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?376846 I _did_ see those and I _didn't_ ask a question. Peter is also saying you are off your rocker for assuming you would get a 4x speedup which I agree with completely. Have you even tested Falcon on a multiprocessor machine? (<-That's a question). Just because Peter agrees with you doesn't make it true. You still need data to back up your claim. Come on. Nothing can be concluded without analysis of the game. You can make claims until you're blue in the face. They don't mean anything until you have something to back those claims up, Omid. You're careless with your claims. You said Falcon could have won with faster hardware. Sorry if I don't blindly believe that. If you determine you would have won based on data and not your desire to have won, I will concede and congratulate you. > > > > >> >>-Sean >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Remember that Boris said many times that the game was over in favor of white. >>>>So white should have won. Give Falcon equal time as crafty, and long time to >>>>simulate 4x opterons. >>>> >>>>Then we should know if you would really have won that game with equal hardware. >>>> >>>> >>>>The other experiment is to substitute Junior for Falcon on the slow hardware >>>>setup and see if Junior also cannot win on uniprocessor. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>:) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>And Ra8 is probably not about search at all. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Peter
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.