Author: Slater Wold
Date: 21:55:23 10/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
No bug. Crafty, Deep Junior, Deep Shredder, they all work fine. They all get pretty good speedups too. Deep Junior gets (on average) 1.83x on the dual. With the _exact_ same setup as any of these engines, I get this result from DF. I am starting to think perhaps a file corrupted. But I would expect an error. Stranger things have happened........... On October 19, 2001 at 22:32:52, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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.