Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:56:52 09/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 25, 2001 at 07:28:17, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On September 25, 2001 at 00:40:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 24, 2001 at 23:45:30, Dave Gomboc wrote: >> >>>On September 24, 2001 at 22:30:26, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>Hello, >>>> >>>>Here written down speedups as claimed by a guy called R. Hyatt >>>>by cray blitz for 24 different positoins as they occured in >>>>a game: >>>> >>>>pos speedup >>>>1 2.0 >>>>2 2.0 >>>>3 2.0 >>>>4 2.0 >>>>5 2.0 >>>>6 2.0 >>>>7 1.9 >>>>8 2.0 >>>>9 2.0 >>>>10 2.0 >>>>11 2.0 >>>>12 1.9 >>>>13 1.9 >>>>14 2.0 >>>>15 2.0 >>>>16 1.9 >>>>17 1.7 >>>>18 1.8 >>>>19 2.0 >>>>20 2.0 >>>>21 2.0 >>>>22 1.9 >>>>23 2.0 >>>>24 2.0 >>>>avg 2.0 >>>> >>>>So YOU, Robert Hyatt, claims in an OFFICIAL magazine, >>>>called ICCA journal march 1997, >>>>an AVERAGE speedup of 2.0 with cray blitz at 2 processors. >>>> >>>>Now i claim the same with DIEP if i'm not using dangerous >>>>extensions (which btw are turned on by default). >>>> >>>>It appears you hadn't turned them on either (smart guy >>>>to publish only speedups without dangerous extensions and only >>>>tell in 2001 that you hadn't turned them on). >>> >>>2.0 isn't a problem, it's >2.0 that gets people up in arms. >>> >>>Dave >> >> >>It isn't even 2.0... I don't have the paper handy now but I seem to recall >>that it was 1.9. Certainly it isn't 2.0 just by inspecting the numbers he >>gave... >> >>And the 4 8 and 16 processor tests were worse. But comparing them to crafty is > >When i tested with 4 i also never got > 4.0 with normal diep versions, >so very consequent with Cray Blitz, of course there are good reasons >why my speedup tests i get 2.0 in practical game >play at tournament level versus cray blitz 2.0 >in practical game play getting the same at 2 processors. > >Bob explained me quite clearly how he had done things in Cray Blitz, >my entire algorithm is based upon that of course! > >I am sure that if cray blitz would run on 2 faster Cray processors, >or simply run longer, that then all its findings will be similar to >my findings! Why don't you look at that JICCA article. Those _were_ long searches. Since I originally ran on 16 processors, I stuck with those results and backed up to 1, 2, 4 and 8 processors. the 1 processor searches took hours at times. The 2 processor tests were _not_ just 3 minute searches. They were huge. > >>very hard because of the different approaches to almost everything from move >>ordering to search algorithm... > >Crafty is recursive, only when you have your own program parallel you >will understand what a big difference in parallel speedup this means >for DIEP + Cray Blitz. I do not know whether Fritz is recursive. It's >assembly, so perhaps Frans can somehow avoid recursive problems in assembly >in a smart way. I have done it both ways. The advantages to non-recursive are only programming issues, _not_ efficiency issues. There is nothing I could do in CB that I can't do in Crafty, if so inclined. I chose to avoid the extra complications for the moment, but it _was_ a choice, not a requirement.
This page took 0.01 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.