Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:12:32 10/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 2001 at 23:48:08, Slater Wold wrote: >Eval with 2 CPUs: > >Deep Fritz - W,S >4qknr/r1b2pp1/2Q1p3/2PpP1Bp/3P1N1N/8/P4PPP/5RK1 w - - 0 1 > >Analysis by Deep Fritz: > >1.Qxe8+ Kxe8 > ± (0.81) Depth: 1/3 00:00:00 >1.Qxe8+ Kxe8 2.Ra1 > ± (0.91) Depth: 2/6 00:00:00 >1.Qxe8+ Kxe8 2.Ra1 Kd7 > ± (0.78) Depth: 3/11 00:00:00 >1.Qxe8+ Kxe8 2.Ra1 f6 3.exf6 gxf6 > ± (0.72) Depth: 4/10 00:00:00 1kN >1.Qxe6! > ± (0.75) Depth: 4/15 00:00:00 4kN >1.Qxe6! fxe6 > +- (2.06) Depth: 4/15 00:00:00 4kN >1.Qxe6 fxe6 2.Nfg6+ Qxg6 3.Nxg6+ > +- (2.06) Depth: 5/15 00:00:00 8kN >1.Qxe6 fxe6 2.Nfg6+ Qxg6 3.Nxg6+ > +- (2.06) Depth: 6/15 00:00:00 14kN >1.Qxe6 fxe6 2.Nfg6+ Qxg6 3.Nxg6+ > +- (2.06) Depth: 7/17 00:00:00 35kN >1.Qxe6 Qxe6 2.Nxe6+ fxe6 3.Ng6+ Ke8 4.Nxh8 Rxa2 5.Rc1 Ne7 > +- (2.22) Depth: 8/19 00:00:00 97kN >1.Qxe6 Qxe6 2.Nxe6+ fxe6 3.Ng6+ Ke8 4.Nxh8 Rxa2 5.Rc1 Ne7 6.Bxe7 Kxe7 > +- (2.22) Depth: 9/19 00:00:00 235kN >1.Qxe6 Qxe6 2.Nxe6+ fxe6 3.Ng6+ Ke8 4.Nxh8 Rxa2 5.Rc1 Ne7 6.Bxe7 Kxe7 > +- (2.28) Depth: 10/21 00:00:00 518kN >1.Qxe6 Qxe6 2.Nxe6+ fxe6 3.Ng6+ Ke8 4.Nxh8 Rxa2 5.Ng6 Kf7 6.Nf4 g6 > +- (2.53) Depth: 11/25 00:00:01 1358kN >1.Qxe6 Qxe6 2.Nxe6+ fxe6 3.Ng6+ Ke8 4.Nxh8 Ra4 5.Rc1 Rxd4 6.Ng6 Ra4 > +- (2.53) Depth: 12/27 00:00:02 2721kN >1.Qxe6 Qxe6 2.Nxe6+ fxe6 3.Ng6+ Ke8 4.Nxh8 Ne7 5.Bxe7 Kxe7 6.Ra1 Ra4 > +- (2.56) Depth: 13/29 00:00:06 7203kN >1.Qxe6 Qxe6 2.Nxe6+ fxe6 3.Ng6+ Ke8 4.Nxh8 Rxa2 5.Ng6 Kf7 6.Nf4 Ba5 > +- (2.47) Depth: 14/31 00:00:13 15955kN >1.Qxe6 Qxe6 2.Nxe6+ fxe6 3.Ng6+ Ke8 4.Nxh8 Rxa2 5.Ng6 Kf7 6.Nf4 Ba5 > +- (2.47) Depth: 15/35 00:00:30 35300kN >1.Qxe6 Qxe6 2.Nxe6+ fxe6 3.Ng6+ Ke8 4.Nxh8 Ra4 5.Rd1 Ne7 6.Bxe7 Kxe7 > +- (2.53) Depth: 16/37 00:01:17 91981kN > >(W, 18.10.2001) > >Eval with 1 CPU: > >Deep Fritz - W,S >Analysis by Deep Fritz: > >1.Qxe8+ Kxe8 2.Ra1 Kd7 > ± (0.78) Depth: 3/11 00:00:00 >1.Qxe8+ Kxe8 2.Ra1 f6 3.exf6 gxf6 > ± (0.72) Depth: 4/10 00:00:00 1kN >1.Qxe8+ Kxe8 2.Ra1 f6 3.exf6 gxf6 > ± (0.72) Depth: 4/10 00:00:00 1kN >1.Qxe8+ Kxe8 2.Ra1 f6 3.exf6 gxf6 > ± (0.72) Depth: 4/10 00:00:00 1kN >1.Qxe6! > ± (0.75) Depth: 4/15 00:00:00 4kN >1.Qxe6! fxe6 > +- (2.06) Depth: 4/15 00:00:00 4kN >1.Qxe6 fxe6 2.Nhg6+ Qxg6 3.Nxg6+ > +- (2.06) Depth: 5/15 00:00:00 8kN >1.Qxe6 fxe6 2.Nhg6+ Qxg6 3.Nxg6+ > +- (2.06) Depth: 6/15 00:00:00 14kN >1.Qxe6 fxe6 2.Nhg6+ Qxg6 3.Nxg6+ > +- (2.06) Depth: 7/17 00:00:00 35kN >1.Qxe6 Qxe6 2.Nxe6+ fxe6 3.Ng6+ Ke8 4.Nxh8 Rxa2 5.Rc1 Ne7 > +- (2.22) Depth: 8/19 00:00:00 96kN >1.Qxe6 Qxe6 2.Nxe6+ fxe6 3.Ng6+ Ke8 4.Nxh8 Rxa2 5.Rc1 Ne7 6.Bxe7 Kxe7 > +- (2.22) Depth: 9/19 00:00:00 235kN >1.Qxe6 Qxe6 2.Nxe6+ fxe6 3.Ng6+ Ke8 4.Nxh8 Rxa2 5.Rc1 Ne7 6.Bxe7 Kxe7 > +- (2.28) Depth: 10/21 00:00:00 518kN >1.Qxe6 Qxe6 2.Nxe6+ fxe6 3.Ng6+ Ke8 4.Nxh8 Rxa2 5.Ng6 Kf7 6.Nf4 g6 > +- (2.53) Depth: 11/28 00:00:01 1341kN >1.Qxe6 Qxe6 2.Nxe6+ fxe6 3.Ng6+ Ke8 4.Nxh8 Ra4 5.Rc1 Rxd4 6.Ng6 Ra4 > +- (2.53) Depth: 12/29 00:00:02 2697kN >1.Qxe6 Qxe6 2.Nxe6+ fxe6 3.Ng6+ Ke8 4.Nxh8 Ne7 5.Bxe7 Kxe7 6.Ra1 Ra4 > +- (2.56) Depth: 13/32 00:00:06 7357kN >1.Qxe6 Qxe6 2.Nxe6+ fxe6 3.Ng6+ Ke8 4.Nxh8 Rxa2 5.Ng6 Kf7 6.Nf4 Ba5 > +- (2.47) Depth: 14/34 00:00:13 15576kN >1.Qxe6 Qxe6 2.Nxe6+ fxe6 3.Ng6+ Ke8 4.Nxh8 Rxa2 5.Ng6 Kf7 6.Nf4 Ba5 > +- (2.47) Depth: 15/35 00:00:31 37201kN >1.Qxe6 Qxe6 2.Nxe6+ fxe6 3.Ng6+ Ke8 4.Nxh8 Ra4 5.Rd1 Ne7 6.Bxe7 Kxe7 > +- (2.53) Depth: 16/36 00:01:20 96223kN > >(W, 18.10.2001) > > >Review: > >2 CPUs: 1,194,558 nps > >1 CPU: 1,202,787 nps > >And just for reference: > >Fritz 6 "Fritzmark" = 1330k nps > >Interesting, ah? > > > >Slate First, there are two ways to compute NPS: NPS=TotalNodes/CpuTime; NPS=TotalNodes/ElapsedTime; Either one is perfectly reasonable. The first gives "average NPS per processor", the second gives "average NPS overall". In your case above, it doesn't look like DF got _anything_ from the second processor, looking at the time taken to reach depth 15. 30 seconds vs 31 seconds suggests that either (a) your machine is not using the second processor (this usually happens when someone tries to use windows 98, etc, rather than win2K). Or else something else is running and using one of the two processors heavily...
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.