Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 18:18:23 07/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 10, 2003 at 14:46:16, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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 So how do you think Diep will place this year? Dave
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.