Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 18:49:52 09/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 23, 2001 at 23:09:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. So you say kind of here that it is NEVER possible in your viewpoint to get a 2.0 speedup when only measuring search times? Please give a clear statement here. Yes or No. > > > >> >>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 0.1 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.