Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 19:32:52 10/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
there is a bug in your system or software if you get only 60-80% system time. You should get like 98% to 100% system time for it. perhaps hashtables too big? On October 19, 2001 at 18:47:13, Slater Wold wrote: >On October 19, 2001 at 11:12:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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... > >Win2k reports that the exe is getting 50% with 1 thread, and anywhere from 60% - >80% with 2. And the rest going to idle time. > >I've done this test on several positions, and it's always the same. 1 CPU is >faster. > >It's pretty weird. No other engines have this problem.
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.