Author: Jorge Pichard
Date: 09:13:42 04/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 21, 2001 at 11:20:46, Uri Blass wrote: >On April 21, 2001 at 09:02:29, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>I have promised to give an update about my talks with Enrique the organizer of >>the computer - Kramnik event. Enrique said no. His reasons are the contractual >>obligations to have the play-off started on April 26 (next thursday) meaning no >>delays. >> >>On the question to have the programs ready before April 26 Enrique questioned >>the strength of the multi versions of Chess Tiger and Rebel. >> >>As a result I gave up. > >I think that it is not fair from Enrique to do it. > >I guess that the multi versions of Rebel or Tiger earns less from more >processors but still earn something from them because it is impossible to >optimize programs for more than one processor in a short time. > >Am I right? > > >Here is an idea how to use 8 processors in a simple way. > >Give one processor to analyze in the regular way(I will call it processor A). >Guess 7 candidate moves to be the best move and give the other 7 processors to >analyze only the candidate moves(one move per processor). > >If proccesor A do not suggest one of the 7 candidates move as best and if the >score of the move of it is better than the scores of the other processors then >play the move of processor A > >In the other cases play the move with the best score based on the scores of the >7 processors. > >If you can guess correctly in most of the cases then it means that you can >search 1 ply deeper in most of the cases thanks to the 8 proccesors. > >Uri I don't believe that a multiprocessors criteria is necessary in order to compete against Kramnik. How can you predict that Deep Shredder or Deep Junior or Deep Fritz on a multiprocessors system are better than Gambit Tiger II or Chess Tiger 14.0 using a single processors? They simply have to allow one of the two BEASTS to compete if Deep Shredder neglect to participate. Since it has not been demonstrated yet that one of these Multiprocessors programs is stronger than BEAST they don't have a choice then to let it compete, and let us all find out the true. I am not saying that a multiprocessor system is slower, since we all know the answer to that, what I am saying here is that whoever is organizing the qualifying match to select the best program is not being fair at all, by not allowing the BEAST a chance to demonstrate that you DO_NOT need a Multiprocessors system in order to qualify as being the best program. Pichard.
This page took 0.01 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.