Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 07:12:11 09/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 04, 2002 at 15:01:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 04, 2002 at 14:49:53, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On September 04, 2002 at 14:24:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>With YOUR method it is very easily possible to get always >>> 2.0. >> >>The easy case is a program that gets a speedup of about 1.9 >>and profits just a bit more than 5% from a filled hashtable. >> >>That's by definition > 2.0 then. > >No, that is by hand-waving > 2.0. Because the serial search would >_also_ profit by the filled hash table and run faster. > >Try again... I already mentionned the reason: the hashtable for the dual cpu output is loaded with 2n nodes, the hashtable was loaded for the single cpu with n nodes. In case of 16 processors you fill at a 16 times higher speed the hashtable than you do single cpu. You didn't mention a thing about pondering in your article. I assume you lied again here, otherwise it would have been mentionned in 'testing metholodogy'. You say here it also ran in time of the opponent. I'm missing outputs and speedup reports of those positions, you don't even mention in the article which move was predicted and what time was spent on it for the 16 processor output. >> >>I need to add that you also have to search in the time of the >>opponent. >> >>Easy scenario. Suppose you take 24 positions. 1 position you >>get say 1.9 speedup (cleaned hashtable). The other 23 positions >>you mispredict the move. However the move is a transposition to >>the search tree the program plays. >> >>Then the moves get played and you start a new search with that hashtable. >> >>So you get like > 10 ply out of hashtable directly. > >So? So does the one-processor test and it all recalibrates nicely... > > >> >>That saves n minutes calculation where you calculate n minutes 50% of >>your search is for free then. I don't need to mention speedup is >>about 2x 1.9 = 3.8 then at 2 processors when compared to someone using >>a cleaned hashtable each time getting a 1.9 speedup. > >Nobody does that. My speedups are calculated consistently, unlike the >mish-mash crap you do above. If the one processor test uses exactly the >same approach as the 4 processor test, then the four processor test doesn't >get any "gain" from hashing that the one processor test doesn't also get... > >Stop waving your hands. You look absolutely ridiculous. > > > >> >>The average speedup is then : (23 * 3.8) + 1.9 = 3.72 >>this at 2 processors. > > >If I compare the speed of a two processor search to the speed at which >a stump-grinder can grind stumps, I get a speedup of > 1,000,000. Not >that the comparison makes much sense. But it makes as much sense as your >rambling above...
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.