Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 09:02:31 04/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 04, 2002 at 03:39:13, Uri Blass wrote: >On April 03, 2002 at 20:22:02, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On April 03, 2002 at 15:00:05, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>I do not agree. 2 processors is for free getting nearly 2 times >>faster. >> >>If that requires effort, it is a peanut compared to the effort >>of writing a very efficient search. >> >>If you have a very efficient search, then again the argument is >>even harder: getting nearly 2 times faster is making your thing >>2 times faster than the opponent. >> >>This removes simply disadvantages as being a slow searcher >>(in my case). I'm always faster than the guys who do not manage >>to get dual CPU. >> >>then let's talk about price. the fastest single cpu liquid cooled CPU >>is always slower for DIEP than DIEP at a dual CPU, whereas everyone >>understands that liquid cooled VAPOCHILL a look like stuff and the >>latest CPU is nearly impossible to get for me. Not to mention >>unaffordable (also hard to get is a chip that is fast AND overclocks well). >> >>In short being SMP removes always the 'i need to invest just too much >>money for this world champ' argument. >> >>If i show up tournaments with a dual 1.2Ghz K7 (which is pretty likely), >>then i could perhaps for the world champs upgrade it pretty cheap to 1.5Ghz >>dual K7 (above those speeds i already tried, the power supply doesn't >>give enough power for speeds above 1.5Ghz so i would need more money then >>to buy an expensive and better E-ATX PSU). >> >>Anyhow. Easier is just put in 1.4MPs pretty cheap upgrade. i'm nearly 3Ghz >>then (when talking about K7). a dual 1.4Ghz K7 is the same speed for DIEP >>like a P4 at about 6Ghz. >> >>So whatever you put single cpu against me, i'm faster simply. All those >>thousands of dollars you can invest for latest cpu. If you are dual >>you CAN be fast for little money (doesn't take away that usually >>you then also invest for expensive CPU's to be even faster, but >>that's other thing). >> >>We all know how hard it is nowadays to improve search. It is nearly >>impossible with a search to beat nullmove + efficient qsearch + nullwindow >>search (PVS). >> >>Of course you can shout about forward pruning, but before you get that >>to work you are 8 years further. Even then it is always doubtful it >>works at tournament level (considering you already get like 12 ply >>easily with just nullmove + well written qsearch). >> >>So let's assume that someone has put 8 years of his time in improving >>search, in fact most time is dedicated by most programmers in >>search improvements (amazingly i have to admit that even in DIEP >>half of my time still goes to search experiments). >> >>Suppose that someone manages to get a 5% node improvement by some kind >>of search improvement. He earns a nobel prize of course then if it is >>lossless (lossy is pretty risky and needs years of testing before it >>can be aproved working for him). >> >>Now compare that with the Huber algorithm which every good programmer >>who has a chessprogram can implement within a few days of his time. >>Another week debugging and he'll get easily a 1.6 speedup. >> >>How can you *ever* say that improving the search of the engine >>is smarter to do, considering that most programmers i know are >>basically busy with search and NOT other things. >> >>for an investment of at most 2 weeks and new hardware, you get nearly >>2 times faster. I don't know a single thing that can speed you up >>that much! >> >>Of course you can go shout about hashtables and nullmove and pondering >>in the time of the opponents, but it is >>pretty idiotic to assume that someone doesn't use these known things. > >There are a lot of engines that do not use >at least one of these things. > >My engine does not use null move, hash tables or pondering and has almost no >evaluation and no book and has almost >no knowledge in the evaluation(for example it's knowledge >about pawn structure is only to punish pawns on the same file and it knows >nothing about weak pawns or passed pawns). but engines like Tiger, Gandalf have all that. >Inspite of these problems it could draw 3-3 with >another new Israeli engine(Genesis) when Genesis is using null move >and hash tables. nullmove is very easy to make. >See http://f11.parsimony.net/forum16635/messages/24414.htm >for the games. > >I believe that the search rules can be improved >significantly without null move or hash tables. it is insane to consider not using hashtables. >Uri
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.