Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:09:18 04/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 20, 2000 at 01:39:55, Jason Williamson wrote: >On April 19, 2000 at 23:55:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 19, 2000 at 23:53:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>As I had mentioned a while back, I have a sack full of quad xeon 550 machines >>>in a beowulf cluster. While waiting on a few final pieces to arrive, I decided >>>to do what I thought was an interesting test: >>> >>>two identical machines, and I mean _identical_. Quad xeon 550's, 27 gigs of >>>SCSI disks in a raid-0 (striping) configuration, 512mb of ram, etc. IE >>>everything is identical, with all the 3-4-5 piece compressed tablebases, >>>same opening books, etc. >>> >>>The only difference was that 'crafty' plays computers and humans, while scrappy >>>only plays humans. Several of us had postulated over the years that if you only >>>play humans, you can drive your rating through the roof. Using the same >>>formulas (5 3 blitz or faster, 60 60 standard or faster, or most any bullet) >>>I have been watching the two programs for a month now. And they seem to >>>hover at the point scrappy == crafty+100, roughly. Standard has crafty >>>actually higher, but that is because crafty is playing standard against >>>computers, while scrappy is playing very little standard as humans seem to be >>>avoiding that for the most part... and those that do play standard play crafty >>>as it is better known. >>> >>>100 points was a surprise... as I thought it would be more. At present crafty >>>is at 31126 and scrappy is at 3219 blitz (which is the most stable ratings >> >>argh: ^^^^^ >> >> >>3126 of course... >> >>31126 won't be reached for maybe 10-20 more years. :) >> >> >> >> >>since >>>most games are blitz). >>> >>>It seems that not playing computers is _not_ a way to grossly inflate your >>>rating, unless you consider 100 as inflated. Note that a rating of 3200 is >>>very high, considering that there are not a lot of GM players that are rated >>>even 3000. I watched scrappy play a 16 game match earlier this week, it won >>>8 games, lost one, then one 7 more, for a 15-1 result (5 3 blitz). It lost 32 >>>rating points for the effort. :) >>> >>>I am going to continue the experiment until I get the rest of the beowulf >>>hardware (another quad box and a fast ethernet switch to complement the >>>giganet switch). If you watch the ratings, you will get a feel for the >>>difference in playing only humans and humans + computers... > > >What do you figure your rating gain will be with the beuwolf beast? Difficult to say right now. I am running on a quad xeon. I will be able to use 9 machines (total) although really only 8 of them have the giganet inter- connect. 8 times the horsepower ought to give a search at _least_ a factor of 4 faster, which is conservative I hope. that would be the equivalent of doubling the speed 2 times. I would think at least 100 rating points, maybe more, but mainly at standard time controls, as distributed computing is not going to be great for blitz/bullet...
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.