Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Open letter to prof. Irazoqui about the Braingames qualifier

Author: Vincent Diepeveen

Date: 15:42:08 04/30/01

Go up one level in this thread


On April 29, 2001 at 12:48:09, Bruce Moreland 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.
>
>Did Enrique know that?
>
>>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.
>
>If he has a multiprocessor version, yes.
>
>bruce
>
>>I am interesting to know how much tiger earns from more than one processor.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>I guess that for most programs like Junior or Fritz the number is something like
>>1.7 times faster.
>>
>>Uri

Tiger speedup i estimate would be closer to 3.0 as 1.7 if using a tough
parallel algorithm. With the french algorithm it would be easily
1.7 for tiger.

Reason is that tiger has a small branching factor and a lot of pruning.
If you forward prune a lot the parallel win is way bigger. If you extend
lot of nonsense the parallel win is smaller too.

For example if i remove all 'dangerous extensions' from DIEP then even
in blitz i get a 1.8 speedup. Right now i get in blitz like 1.4 or
something. Not *near* 1.7 or 1.8. At 3 minutes a move i get
between 1.8 and 2.0 with all dangerous extensions though.

My parallellism improves my b.f. simply.

So if i would run single cpu 2 processes at the same time then also
b.f. gets faster. However, initially search speed is a few hundreds
of nodes a second, so the overhead is a lot, because before it starts
splitting at cool positions the hashtables need to get filled bigtime
and it takes time to get back to the single cpu speed :)

Also not to be forgotten for tiger is that its speed is not so fast
as from Fritz and junior. This means you have less overhead so getting
a good speedup is way easier then.

Same is valid for DIEP. it's dead slow, only 40k nps at a 1Ghz machine,
so getting a good speedup is way easier as i lose less to overhead.

Under linux my overhead is about 3%, note it was way more with previous
compiler version 2.95.2...





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.