Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:58:23 04/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 12, 2003 at 22:13:50, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On April 12, 2003 at 01:54:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >i can't remember a single logfile from Cray Blitz i ever received or ever saw >posted somewhere. So? You simply don't know where to look. First one was published in Chess Live in 1981. Others were published in various places... > >Apart from that. It is a workon version now of DIEP. All initial work is hard if >you face massive supercomputing (500 processors definitely qualifies for that) >for the first time. > >If i post something that is really looking good already and showing clear >progress now, then when it is 10 times improved next versions, that will be >forgotten and the current thing will be quoted. > >I will not take that risk. I will be posting probably directly after the world >champs or if sponsor wants to use it, they can do that anytime. I keep a diary >in fact. Every run i do at the supercomputer is logged and commented. > >I assume that diary will not be posted publicly, but the massive tests on the >last few versions will. > >That will be around november 2003 i guess then. > > > >>On April 11, 2003 at 14:26:57, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On April 11, 2003 at 14:06:23, Keith Evans wrote: >>> >>>>On April 11, 2003 at 07:56:02, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 10, 2003 at 17:14:21, Keith Evans wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 10, 2003 at 15:26:24, Johan Hutting wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On April 10, 2003 at 13:56:29, Keith Evans wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is the 500 >>>>>>>>processor box running Windows? Linux? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Operating system: Irix >>>>>>>(http://www.sara.nl/userinfo/teras/usage/progavail/irix/index.html) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>other stats: http://www.sara.nl/userinfo/teras/description/index.html >>>>>> >>>>>>Vincent are you able to run the same code on an SMP PC and on a 500 CPU CC-NUMA >>>>>>machine? >>>>> >>>>>yes 100% the same code compiles. i do not modify a byte in fact. >>>>> >>>>>the makefile in irix has litterary: >>>>> >>>>>-DIRIX >>>>> >>>>>and the windows file doesn't have that one. >>>>> >>>>>in my diep.h: >>>>> >>>>>#if IRIX >>>>> #define MAXPROCESSES 512 >>>>>#else >>>>> #define MAXPROCESSES 16 // right now, used to be 8 ;) >>>>> >>>>>>Curious, >>>>>>Keith >>>> >>>>Cool. >>>> >>>>Pardon my ignorance, but when is the big competition again? >>>> >>>>Will you publish some technical info after the comp? Like what sort of speedup >>>>you're getting from 512 processors? >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>>Keith >>> >>>Everything will be published including logfiles with numbers in it. >>> >>>i never play unfair. everything will be posted on the diep speedups also in the >>>ICGA journal with url where you can find the logfiles (or i'll email them at >>>request). >>> >>>maximum number of addressable cpu's is 508 then some need to be used by other >>>dudes who continuesly do stuff. so i hope that isn't 300 cpu's during the >>>tournament as then only 200 are left to get used. >>> >>>I can only do those 500 processor tests probably during the rounds at world >>>champs 2003. >>> >>>The only thing i cannot garantuee is when the logfiles get posted. It will be >>>probably around or after the world champs. Not before, but directly after sure. >>> >>>Most likely the logfiles while playing get posted while it plays. Except perhaps >>>the game against the junior team the logfiles will not be posted live, because i >>>do know what they do if they see a brilliant line from DIEP in the logfile... >>> >>>I would be very happy with around 10% speedup. >>> >>>But never forget that's actual speedup. that's with a program which also runs >>>well at a single cpu machine. zugzwang claimed for example 50% speedup. >>> >>>but that was with 512 processors and in total 5 ply searches fullwidth were >>>performed. he calculated speedup based upon number of nodes at a 5 ply fullwidth >>>search. >>> >>>Imagine that i create a bug in diep that only 1 cpu searches and the rest idles. >>>Then my speedup in number of nodes is of course 100%. But my speedup in time is >>>1.0 out of 512. >>> >>>They concluded 50% from that, which is very poor if you consider how little >>>nodes a second a single cpu also got with them. I do not see how they could do >>>that. Their way of measuring sucked. Deep Blue guessed with a wet finger that it >>>was 8% without any evidence at around 30 nodes. Not even their output shows >>>number of searches searched. >>> >>>Hyatt on the other hand claims on a shared memory machine 11.x out of 16 cpu's >>>or so. He did not slow down his program 30 times like the zugzwang team did, but >>>did some modification to his search results as i have proven in august 2002. you >>>still can get the data in a table and look for yourself. All he tried to cover >>>up for is probably a factor 2 which he lost somewhere. Still considering the >>>fact that he didn't slow down his thing 30 times, it is a very good speed. >>> >>>Then we have many poor researches. Without exception they managed all to get >>>great results, without showing any logfile. >>> >>>DIEP's output however shows everything. In logfiles are all statistics >>>available. local hashhits,globalhashhits, number of nodes needed for each ply >>>and for each mainline. number of searches done. number of failhighaborts (1 cpu >>>aborting possibly other cpu's as well), how many nodes were done during >>>nullmove, etcetera. In short nothing amateuristic where by not showing anything >>>you can cover up for having a sucking program. >>> >> >>You've never posted a single parallel search logfile here or anywhere else. >> >>You don't even mention your parallel speedup any longer. You just knock >>everyone else and claim they don't get what they say. I'd assume your numbers >>look pretty sad based on that... >> >>Feel free to post them however. I have posted many of mine here and sent you >>the logfiles also... >> >> >>>I have no statistics to hide in that respect. To my sponsor NWO i have already >>>written down in the 400 pages or so i wrote to get system time (that doesn't >>>only involve nwo but another 6 other organisations), that it is my intention to >>>publish all logfiles open and fair. No bad science there. >>> >>>The NWO of course is an organisation that appreciates this. >>> >>>Best regards, >>>Vincent
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.