Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:45:01 09/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 2002 at 07:49:16, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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 Good question. You curse, throw up your hands, and walk out of the room. :) You have seen me preach, for many years, how this is a regular happening with no solution in sight. It happened in Cray Blitz. It has happened in Crafty from day one. Bruce/Ferret produced similar variability. You just hope that in important games you get the "good" cases... and you hold your breath... :) > >>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.