Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:09:08 09/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 23, 2001 at 19:38:11, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On September 23, 2001 at 18:47:27, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On September 23, 2001 at 18:32:50, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>The average test done here at CCC is 10 to 20 seconds a move. >>> >>>Even the new try to make a WACII the dudes test at most at 1 minute >>>a move. >>> >>>So you're kind of wrong here. >>> >>>Most tests in ICCA and advances in ICCA are based upon anything under or >>>equal to 8 ply. >>> >>>I can only remember a single article 'crafty goes deep' where some >>>deeper searches were done. >> >>That may the speed they are measuring at, but the assumption is that the speedup >>rate will remain roughly constant as the depth increases further. > >well that assumption is wrong. Read what bob writes about Cray Blitz >in journal in ICCA. > >Also note that speedup of cray blitz is reported to be 3.9 there at >4 processors, doing that by moving 64KB blocks or whatever and nearly >a fullwidth search with singular extensions! > >At 2 processors cray blitz gets *easily* 1.9 speedup. Don't mix apples and oranges. the 1.9 was without SE. That speedup was done at the time of my dissertation. Not with the SE version of CB. > >With singular extensions i do not even get *close* to that speedup. I >get 1.8 then. > >Why wouldn't i manage at just 2 processors to get 2.0 then at 2 processors >if i turn off singular extensions at 3 minutes a move? Simple answer. You would have to have _perfect_ move ordering to do that. I don't believe it is possible. Except in very rare positions. If your move ordering is not perfect at a split node, that kills any hope of a perfect 2.0 speedup. > >You guys are not listening to arguments like: "game space". > >What the hell do you know from computerchess anyway? > >I mean you *never* of course measured anything. So arguments >i write down here and reasons simply do not get listened to! So long as you refer to super-linear speedups nobody is going to listen. It simply isn't possible as the sequential algorithm can be speeded up first... This is old news. It is well-known. Anybody worth their salt in computer science is going to remind you of it over and over and over... Eventually it will "sink in". > >>Dave
This page took 0.06 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.