Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 11:46:16 07/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 10, 2003 at 13:13:00, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 10, 2003 at 12:40:38, Russell Reagan wrote: > >>On July 10, 2003 at 01:53:26, Derek Paquette wrote: >> >>>Just read a great post by the author of DIEP, and how he is getting an >>>Incredible machine, a godly machine I should say, now really, >>>Would a human even have a chance in hell? its going to be dozens of times faster >>>than Deep Blue >>>I know that speed isn't everything, but when you are looking 45ply ahead.... >>>I put all bets on the machine with 500 processors >>> >>>what do the rest of you think? >> >>I'd guess it will still lose to the top commercials, just like it did when he >>had a 1024 processor machine at the last WCCC. Since 1024 didn't work, what >>makes you think only 500 will be better? > >He had not a 1024 processor machine at the last WCCC. >I think that he tried to make Diep using them in a productive way but failed. I had 60 processors of a broken partition that was regurarly getting rebooted because of maintenance. In combination with a preparation time of 3 days it wasn't very good performing at it :) The machine indeed has 1024 processors in total. Biggest partition addressable is 512 from which you can use 500 processor maximum. >I think that less processors is an easier task. >if 1024 was too hard task for him then maybe 500 is going to be an easier task. >The first question is how much speed is he going to get from the 500 processors. >I do not predict nothing about it. >Uri Even a small speedup times 500 processors still is 10 times faster than any PC. Note that in 2002 i didn't lose from any commercial program except junior which was lost in a silly way (i had put the day before in order to test quicker the EGTBs to just 1 MB cache this at a very slow old harddisk; supercomputer i/o was broken at that time as it was getting upgraded and junior team had made it me impossible to use internet) as it just got 6 ply when i tried to prevent forfeiting and had put it to 1 minute rest of the game in the last 5 minutes i had left for the game. Then it played instantly a move with 6 ply search somewhere move 79 or something and that was losing move. Many others would have been simple repetition. DIEP nearly won from Fritz, Shredder and others in 2002. 3 games i played at supercomputer the others i had to play at dual or simply crashed at the supercomputer. Something that didn't help me either was what was going on at the big partition. There was some big program running at the supercomputer which eated all bandwidth away; it was using like 300 processors or so. In contradiction to most programs that are all running within L2 cache at each processor this software had allocated about 200GB memory. So it was eating from my 60 processors everything away too. Result was horrible latencies in a program not designed for NUMA. The combination of all that was disaster. In 2003 however i'll be running 500 processors and will have the partition for myself AFAIK. So no problems with other users at that partition. Then diep will be better tested for 2003 so it is impossible to compare the 2002 situation with 2003. Many try here it is not very smart to do so. Trivially others will be prepared very well too, like brutus and junior. Shredder perhaps will be unlucky and running perhaps at most at 2 processors. If we compare however then a lot of weak chains of DIEP will be a lot stronger in 2003 and one of its weakest chains in 2002 which was search depth, will be a lot different. 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.