Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:39:32 09/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 04, 2002 at 10:50:48, Jeremiah Penery wrote: > >Why do you run only one position and claim it proves your point? You run with 2 >processors to boot, which already introduces some error into the results. You _really_ expect him to answer that? Please don't ask him question like this, as chaos theory says that if he flaps his arms in the Netherlands, he can cause a hurricane in the Gulf. :) We don't need any. > >>2r2rk1/1bqnbpp1/1p1ppn1p/pP6/N1P1P3/P2B1N1P/1B2QPP1/R2R2K1 b b7e4 >>moves: solution ; singlemove Bxe4!! >>name : Bratko-Kopec.22 > >>Crafty v18.15 (1 cpus) >> >>White(1): ponder off >>pondering disabled. >>White(1): mt 2 >>max threads set to 2 >>White(1): setboard 2r2rk1/1bqnbpp1/1p1ppn1p/pP6/N1P1P3/P2B1N1P/1B2QPP1/R2R2K1 b ><SNIP> >> 27883394 13 23.56 -0.63 1. ... Bxe4 2. Bxe4 Qxc4 3. Qxc4 Rxc4 >> 4. Nxb6 Rxe4 5. Nxd7 Nxd7 6. Bd4 Rb8 >> 7. Rac1 Rxb5 8. Rc7 e5 9. Rxd7 exd4 >> 10. Nxd4 >> 35691370 13-> 29.91 -0.63 1. ... Bxe4 2. Bxe4 Qxc4 3. Qxc4 Rxc4 >> 4. Nxb6 Rxe4 5. Nxd7 Nxd7 6. Bd4 Rb8 >> 7. Rac1 Rxb5 8. Rc7 e5 9. Rxd7 exd4 >> 10. Nxd4 >> 60295418 14 48.61 -0.40 1. ... Bxe4 2. Bxe4 Qxc4 3. Qxc4 Rxc4 >> 4. Nxb6 Rxe4 5. Bxf6 Nxf6 6. Rdc1 Rd8 >> 7. Nc8 Nd5 8. b6 Re2 9. b7 >> 136243127 14-> 1:48 -0.40 1. ... Bxe4 2. Bxe4 Qxc4 3. Qxc4 Rxc4 >> 4. Nxb6 Rxe4 5. Bxf6 Nxf6 6. Rdc1 Rd8 >> 7. Nc8 Nd5 8. b6 Re2 9. b7 >> >>Now the same version without nullmove: >> >>Crafty v18.15 (1 cpus) >> >>White(1): mt 2 >>max threads set to 2 >>White(1): ponder off >>pondering disabled. >>White(1): setboard 2r2rk1/1bqnbpp1/1p1ppn1p/pP6/N1P1P3/P2B1N1P/1B2QPP1/R2R2K1 b ><SNIP> >> 1203681300 12 14:15 -0.44 1. ... Bxe4 2. Bxe4 Qxc4 3. Qxc4 Rxc4 >> 4. Nxb6 Nxb6 5. Bd3 Rcc8 6. Nd4 Rfe8 >> 7. Nc6 a4 >> 3625442403 12-> 44:17 -0.44 1. ... Bxe4 2. Bxe4 Qxc4 3. Qxc4 Rxc4 >> 4. Nxb6 Nxb6 5. Bd3 Rcc8 6. Nd4 Rfe8 >> 7. Nc6 a4 >> 5277808477 13 63:23 -0.63 1. ... Bxe4 2. Bxe4 Qxc4 3. Qxc4 Rxc4 >> 4. Nxb6 Rxe4 5. Nxd7 Nxd7 6. Bd4 Rb8 >> 7. Rac1 Rxb5 8. Rc7 e5 9. Rxd7 exd4 >> 10. Nxd4 >> >> >>We see that a search of 15 seconds with nullmove takes 44 minutes >>without. At tournament time controls the difference is already 3 ply. >>After that difference is 5 ply, obviously caused by the better >>branching factor. Note that the node counts above are garbage, but he doesn't let that stop him from quoting nonsense... > >Obviously it depends on the position, but you could be right about this. I >don't know, because I don't care to know the difference between using null-move >and not using it in Crafty. Still, I don't think it has any bearing on parallel >search efficiency/speedup. Neither do I. a two-cpu speedup is simply defined as the one-cpu time divided by the two-cpu time. Whatever that is is the speedup value recognized around the world, every where except where Vincent sits...
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.