Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 09:39:08 12/09/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 1999 at 11:57:17, Christophe Theron wrote: >On December 09, 1999 at 08:45:06, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On December 09, 1999 at 05:58:45, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >> >>>On December 09, 1999 at 04:49:45, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>> >>>>The best I can do is to play 40 games at 60/60 >>> >>>I mean 60/30, 60 moves in 30 minutes. >> >>no way i'm never gonna go 60/30 then diep gets sometimes only 7 plies >>deep in a few crucial positions. > > >Having 6 times more time will not save you in this case. How deeper can you go >with 6 times more time? 2 plies I guess? minimum depth 9 indeed. there is a HUGE difference between all plies *at least* 9 ply or *at least* 7 ply. At duals and quads the bigger hashtable and parallel cutoffs cause simply that the worst case is less bad of DIEP, as i don't allow to split below my trees more than 0.5 n processors, so there is no worst case there. This causes in positions where the single cpu version has a bit of bad luck with move ordering, that the parallel version usual doesn't have it. therefore at a quad xeon 400Mhz (linux), which represents 4x400 x 0.9 (linux compiler slower) = 1600 x 0.9 = 1400Mhz roughly. that sounds a lot, but at 90 0 in dutch open i got all games at least 10 ply deep, where at home some positions at a 450Mhz NT at analysis level it sometimes hardly gets 9, though simple math tells me that objectively 1400 / 450 = roughly 3.5 So if i give it 3.5 times more time than the quad got in dutch open, then i should get objectively of course single cpu at least the same depth in *any* position. I'm not interested in the speedup then of course, i'm only interested in the minimum depth my program searches in this case. However this test goes wrong. the quad does *a lot* better. Usual my move ordering does ok, but in a few positions where it is dead wrong, there parallellism in my opinion clearly prevents that worst case to happen. 40 in 2 level at at least k6-2 (preferably intel though) like at SSDF i find therefore a normal time control for this bet. Vincent >You need a 1 move in 2 hours time control. Such a match would be fun too, but a bit hard to get systemtime for. i want to have my champaign sooner than that too... > > > >>don't worry i've got offers enuf from testers. > > >Who has offered to play the match? > > > > Christophe
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.