Author: Jorge Pichard
Date: 09:22:17 04/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 21, 2001 at 12:13:42, Jorge Pichard wrote: >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, Deep Junior or Deep >Fritz on a multiprocessors system are better than Gambit Tiger II or Chess Tiger >14.0 using a single processor? 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 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.