Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 11:45:17 12/09/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 1999 at 12:39:08, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>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
So now we just need a volunteer...
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.