Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 21:47:06 07/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2002 at 19:42:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. > Yes, please re-tell. >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". > Nor did he claim to. I can't see this happening (weaker play with 200x speedup) unless you have a major bug like a sign error in a large positional term like passed-pawn scoring or king safety. But that's far beyond what I would consider a "badly-tuned" eval. Actually, forget that, I think the entire eval would have to be backwards for that much extra speed to weaken you. I'd gladly invert just my king safety for a 200x speedup. ;) -Peter
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.