Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 10:11:10 12/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 2005 at 13:26:42, Zappa wrote: As most people here do not realize very well what the machine is, here a short comparision. The only machine on the planet faster than this for chess, is NASA's 10240 processor SGI machine which has partitions of 2048 processors. So basically this is the one fastest machine for chess. Let's do a small comparision with hydra. Hydra has 64 cpu's and each cpu delivers 3 Gflop. So that's about 0.192 Tflop for entire machine. This 1060 processor machine delivers 6.4 gflop a processor. So that's 6.784 tflop on paper. In reality Zappa uses from the machine 512 processors. 12 processors will be for i/o, a processor carrying a timer (timing goes central) and one to set coffee for you meanwhile another gets a fastfood meal for you. So he could use in theory 500 processors in Turino. 500 * 6.4 Gflop = 3.2 Tflop. Of course all that doesn't matter for practical search efficiency. Hydra loses shitloads to search efficiency, after initially winning some by hardware. Zappa has also big inefficiency of course at such a big machine. If i look at diep's speedup at this machine, Diep would be practical having a hardware advantage of factor 6 to a quad opteron dual core 2.4Ghz in world champs 2006. I expect Anthony to obtain something like that too. Vincent >So when I went to UIUC as a newly minted World Champion, they were interested >and after some negotiations I managed to procure some time on NCSA's Cobalt >supercomputer, an SGI Altix: > >http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/UserInfo/Resources/Hardware/SGIAltix/TechSummary/ > >At Paderborn Zappa will run on 128 CPUs as a bit of a warmup; at Turino I hope >to use 512. I haven't really had enough time to seriously optimize Zappa for >this machine, and I have been somewhat disappointed by the Itanium2 CPU, but the >results are still reasonably impressive. For example: > >r1b2r2/p1q1ppk1/6p1/3p3p/7P/5P2/PPPQ2P1/2K1RB1R b - - 0 9 > >1... Ra8-b8 2. g2-g4 h5xg4 3. h4-h5 Qc7-b6 4. b2-b3 Qb6-f6 5. Kc1-b1 Rf8-h8 6. >h5-h6 Kg7-g8 7. f3xg4 Bc8xg4 8. h6-h7 Kg8-f8 9. Qd2-h6 Kf8-e8 10. Bf1-d3 e7-e6 > = (-0.49) Depth: 17/45 00:03:37.11 5532448kN (25481 KN/s, 3558608 >splits, 294631 aborts) > >r1b2rk1/pp3ppp/1nn1p3/q2pP3/2pP1P2/P1P2NPB/2PB3P/R2QK2R w KQ - 0 8 > >1. Ke1-g1 Nc6-e7 2. Nf3-h4 Qa5-a4 3. Qd1-b1 Bc8-d7 4. Qb1-b2 Qa4-c6 5. Ra1-b1 >Qc6-c7 6. Nh4-g2 Ra8-c8 7. Kg1-h1 Ne7-f5 8. Ng2-e3 Nf5xe3 9. Bd2xe3 Rf8-d8 10. >Rb1-a1 > = (0.15) Depth: 20/46 00:04:33.59 7300957kN (26686 KN/s, 6497504 >splits, 503423 aborts) > >Single CPU Zappa on the I2 there gets about 300 knps, so that is an nps speedup >of 80-85. I'll probably get a bit less in Paderborn, as this is essentially the >World Champs version of Zappa, and I've been busy de-optimizing it since :) > >This is really only 1-2 ply deeper than my quad, but wait until Turino when I've >had some time to optimize things a bit . . . > >anthony
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.