Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 08:24:16 09/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 25, 2001 at 09:56:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. R=1, futility, 200Mhz things and most likely a relatively bad tuned evaluation, when compared to todays standards. > > >> >>>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.