Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 04:49:16 09/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 2002 at 00:29:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: >pos 1cpu 2cpu 2cpu 2cpu > 1 153 89 (1.72) 88 (1.74) 90 (1.70) > 2 139 90 (1.54) 90 (1.54) 90 (1.54) > 3 130 82 (1.59) 87 (1.49) 87 (1.49) > 4 176 100 (1.76) 99 (1.78) 100 (1.76) > 5 147 95 (1.55) 99 (1.48) 87 (1.69) > 6 135 77 (1.75) 77 (1.75) 78 (1.73) > 7 92 50 (1.84) 50 (1.84) 50 (1.84) > 8 149 104 (1.43) 89 (1.67) 90 (1.66) > 9 80 60 (1.33) 62 (1.29) 60 (1.33) >10 155 82 (1.89) 76 (2.04) 75 (2.07) >11 142 80 (1.77) 80 (1.77) 82 (1.73) >12 105 76 (1.38) 76 (1.38) 76 (1.38) >13 149 105 (1.42) 105 (1.42) 107 (1.39) >14 147 104 (1.41) 87 (1.69) 74 (1.99) >15 150 86 (1.74) 86 (1.74) 86 (1.74) >16 159 73 (2.18) 72 (2.21) 72 (2.21) >17 158 97 (1.63) 97 (1.63) 77 (2.05) >18 85 42 (2.02) 41 (2.07) 42 (2.02) >19 125 61 (2.05) 63 (1.98) 103 (1.21) How should we interprete just in normal language or chess this result? Two times almost factor 2 and then down to 1.21? Rolf Tueschen >20 160 112 (1.43) 117 (1.37) 109 (1.47) >21 156 73 (2.14) 62 (2.52) 103 (1.51) >22 77 60 (1.28) 73 (1.05) 60 (1.28) >23 134 93 (1.44) 95 (1.41) 97 (1.38) >24 131 84 (1.56) 82 (1.60) 115 (1.14) > average speedup-> (1.66) (1.69) (1.72) > > >OK... some more food for thought. > >1. The overall average speedup is "smoother" than I thought. I am going to >add the other computational approach to show the average of the 24 speedups, >and then the total speedup computed by dividing the sums of the times in the >columns... > >2. There is a interesting variability. A few positions are pretty much >"rock solid" in their times. Like #18, and a few others. A few are >all over the spectrum, #24 is one, but others like #14 are really bouncing >around too. > >3. Each run produces 2-3-4 super-linear speedups, and a couple of >positions are consistent. That causes me some concern that move ordering >is having problems there and I am interested in the "why" of that... > >4. The fail high percent for a wild position seems normal (91% for #14 for >example). > >5. the fail high percent for the superlinear positions also seems sane. But >since a couple of positions do it every time, I'm going to look at some partial >trees to see what is up with that. Although super-linear is not unexpected, I >am seeing more than I did with CB. Perhaps the fact that CB's evaluation didn't >produce these enormous positional scores kept the tree shape more under control, >I don't know (yet). > >6. It looks like the 1.7X speedup for 2 cpus is pretty solid here as well, >as I had seen in the past... > >I have one more of these running, when it is done I will produce one final >table and then maybe queue up 4 of the 3cpu tests and do it again. I am >pretty sure the variability will climb with the number of processors... > >If anyone wants the large raw data logs, let me know, I will save them for a >while. If anyone wants to check my eyeball copying of the data, (the times) >that would certainly be good, but you will need the raw logs.
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.