Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:03:36 04/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2001 at 05:42:42, Uri Blass wrote: >On April 29, 2001 at 05:08:37, Chessfun wrote: > >>On April 29, 2001 at 04:01:32, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On April 29, 2001 at 03:39:53, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>> >>>>It seems clear why it wasn't invited to participate: >>>> >>>>1) The organizer is going to use a multiprocessor machine. >>>>2) Fritz and Junior run on a multiprocessor machine. >>>>3) Tiger is known to not run on such a machine. >>>>4) Tiger is very strong, but if it is stronger than Junior or Fritz, it's >>>>probably not stronger by much. >>>>5) A multiprocessor machine should produce a significant performance boost. >>>>6) It is hoped that the event will produce an "accurate" winner. >>>> >>>>If you allow these points, you can make a case that Tiger on a single processor >>>>can't be stronger than Junior or Fritz on a multi. >> >>>I understood that tiger can use more than one processor. >> >> >>I never understood that. I took it that one could be produced. >> >> >>>I guess that Tiger could earn less than Fritz or Junior because of the fact that >>>Christophe and Ed had not enough time to optimize tiger for more than one >>>processor but it still can earn something from more than one processor. >> >> >>Assuming they are within say 20 SSDF rating points of each other on >>equal machines which seems likely. It seems highly unlikely without >>proper debugging and testing that the above would be true. And an >>event such as this IMO is not the place for that testing/debugging. > >I believe that testing debugging can be done in a few days if the target is only >to be practically sure that it is better than the one processor version. Sorry, but you are badly wrong. It takes _months_. The bugs are hard to find. They will only show up infrequently (not reproducible easily) and so forth. > >You only need to test it in games to see that there is no problem and to test it >in test position to see if the 2 processor version is faster than the one >processor version. Don't make statements until you _write_ one. I finished Cray Blitz (the most recent parallel search algorithm) in 1988. I found bugs for two years at _least_. When I went from 2 to 4 processors new bugs showed up. 4 to 8? same thing. 8 to 16? Yet again. > >You only needs to give the parallel version to play to see if there are problems >in games and few days are enough to get a enough games to be sure that bugs are >not common and usually do not happen in games. Suppose I told you I had bugs that would show up in a given position. But only one of every 10,000 times the position was ran for 3 minutes? Your debugging idea makes me (as a software engineer) cringe. You could play all day, every day, for a month, and still have major and serious bugs that you had not _seen_. > >I guess that these tests were done but I cannot know because I am not Ed or >Christophe. > >> >> >>>I am interesting to know how much tiger earns from more than one processor. >> >> >>I doubt at this time there is an answer for that. >> >> >>>If there is a parallel version it is easy to compare both versions at least in >>>test positions and to give an estimate how much is it faster on 2 processors. >> >> >>You wrote above "I understood that tiger can use more than one processor." >>Now you have changed this to "if". And IMO the same problem existed for Enrique. > >I understood it from Ed's post. > >"I understood it" does not mean that I am 100% sure about it and this is the >reason for the words "if there is...". > >Uri
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.