Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:36:38 09/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 04, 2002 at 13:23:08, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On September 04, 2002 at 13:10:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >No one uses these speedup numbers except you bob. So? The numbers are more meaningful, if they are harder to produce, that's just a problem you have to overcome. But Crafty plays games. It is interesting to know how it behaves in "near game" conditions, which are closer to how it is used than a random set of disconnected positions from all over... > >Not clearing the hashtable is not a fair way to test, >but of course a great way to get a better speedup than >you actually get. that last sentence is unparsable by me... "get a better speedup than you actually get" can't be parsed by me or any software I have access to. not a fair way to test? What is a chess engine written to do? Solve disconnected positions? Or play a complete game. As the DTS article said, the reason I tested that was was because I was _continually_ asked "how does the 16 cpu machine speed up your program compared to a one-cpu machine, in games?" I couldn't answer because my PhD dissertation was based on the kopec 24 positions (23 actually, I deleted #1 as useless). So I set out to answer _that_ question. And clearly in real games I don't clear the hash table. So the test is _perfectly_ valid. Since most are playing games and not solving randomly-selected positions. > >Also we watn the node counts obviously and as crafty is >one of the few with a asymmetric king safety it's also >better to turn that off by using the 'analyze' feature. > Why? Shouldn't the speedup be the actual numbers produced in a game? Aha. you want to finagle around and find the settings that make the speedups the _worst_ so that you can compare to those? The DTS article was _clear_ about its intent of finding the speedup during a game rather than for disconnected positions. "during a game" is the key point. And a game is not played with asymmetry off if the program normally has it on. Test your program however you want. But don't try to tell me why _my_ testing positions and methodology are no good. They are at _least_ as good as yours. After all, I am not the one claiming super-linear speedup is a normal occurrence. My tests don't show that at all, except for an occasional random position...
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.