Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 05:14:07 07/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 10, 2002 at 00:47:06, Peter Kappler wrote: >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 Deeper searches help even if the eval (material and positional) is reversed, the only requirement is to give mate-scores correctly. José.
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.