Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 16:42:37 07/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2002 at 17:41:09, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 09, 2002 at 15:25:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 09, 2002 at 13:30:55, Marc van Hal wrote: >> >>>On July 09, 2002 at 02:36:22, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On July 09, 2002 at 01:34:04, John Reynolds wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If I understand correctly, Diep is using a Supercomputer, shouldn't it be doing >>>>>much better in this tournament, or is it to early to Judge? I mean the Computer >>>>>World Championship ofcourse. >>>> >>>>You did not understand correctly >>>> >>>>see http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?238965 >>>> >>>>I also read that in another post that the prices for one hour of the super >>>>computer are very high so I guess that people need to be rich in order to use >>>>the super computer. >>>> >>>>I guess that in order to use the super computer you need a lot of hours of >>>>testing in the super computer to see that things work and if you need to pay >>>>some hundreds of dollars for an hour then it is something that most programmers >>>>cannot even consider and I talk only about 60 cpu's because the prices for 1024 >>>>cpu's are even higher. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>> >>>In fact I saw the statements of the WCCC and I ad once was thinking some >>>programs will perform worse if they are just installed on a computer >>>Leading to false results >>>All program with learning have trouble with this only one more then the other. >>>I don't know the reason of this but I do know this from expierince. >>>But in fact it is like a Tournament player who prepared his games and when he >>>has to play the tournament he has to forget everthing he prepared. >>> >>>Marc van Hal >> >> >>There are several issues: >> >>1. using unusual hardware is non-trivial. NUMA machines are one example. >> >>2. Going faster may well cause your eval to misbehave as it is very easy to >>tune an evaluation to a specific search depth and going much deeper or shallower >>can cause some of that tuning to be wrong. > >I agree about the other problems but 2 is not a serious problem. First question, have you _ever_ done this? I have. And I have been burned by it. Second question, did you ever see my comments about how we almost lost (or didn't win) the 1986 WCCC event due to this _very_ problem? If not, I can re-tell the story again. Believe me it _is_ a problem. From someone who developed a chess engine on a machine running 100 nodes per second, and then played on a machine searching 1000 times faster. It can be a _serious_ problem. > >Every program that I know is going to play better if you give it 10 hours per >move and not 3 minutes per move. > >Uri Sorry, but you don't know "every program".
This page took 0.01 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.