Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 11:26:09 09/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 25, 2001 at 14:09:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 25, 2001 at 11:24:16, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>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. > >I have said this once. I will say it again. You can take crafty, and >run some tests with R=0, R=1, R=2 and R=2-3 (or any other R values you >care to try). That will _not_ affect the SMP performance in the least. Please do so on the 24 game positions as used in your Article about Cray Blitz. Also for every depth apart. To also see possible relationships in search depth. Each position for 1 hour or so. If automatically scheduled that's within 24 hours. >The selectivity of the tree has nothing to do with the efficiency of the >parallel search activity. > >I will be happy to post a few numbers if you want... > >Evaluation also has no effect on parallel search performance. You can be >bad or wonderful there and have a good or bad parallel search for either. > > > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>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 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.