Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:26:41 12/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2003 at 16:18:21, James T. Walker wrote: >On December 18, 2003 at 16:07:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 18, 2003 at 15:53:02, James T. Walker wrote: >> >>>On December 17, 2003 at 13:20:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On December 17, 2003 at 13:09:57, Slater Wold wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 17, 2003 at 10:41:24, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On December 17, 2003 at 10:23:26, Matthew Hull wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On December 17, 2003 at 10:21:58, Slater Wold wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On December 17, 2003 at 09:35:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On December 17, 2003 at 09:05:55, Slater Wold wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I guess I will be running the 100:1 NPS challenge. Here's the info: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I will use any books.bin & bookc.bin that Bob asks me to. The book.bin will be >>>>>>>>>>created from enormous.pgn. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>My suggestion is to use book.bin, bookc.bin and books.bin from my ftp >>>>>>>>>machine. book.bin has no learning data so it will start off in the best >>>>>>>>>possible way. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>remove position.bin before game 1. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>And, as I suggested previously, if, after a program leaves book, it is >>>>>>>>>in an obviously won or lost position, the game gets aborted and the next >>>>>>>>>one started. There is no place for "book kills" when the goal is a time >>>>>>>>>handicap match. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Agreed. The only loss Crafty has suffered in the Rebel match was a book loss. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>BTW, what were the results of that match? >>>>>> >>>>>>3.5-1.5 for crafty >>>>>> >>>>>>see http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?336433 >>>>>> >>>>>>Note that the match is not very interesting for me because it is an open >>>>>>question if Crafty is better than rebel on equal hardware and in WBEC Crafty has >>>>>>13/24 when Rebel has only 10/24 >>>>> >>>>>There is no doubt in my mind Rebel is better than Crafty on equal hardware. And >>>>>I've played, oh, about 5,000 games with Rebel. >>>> >>>>I would take that wager. We _both_ use quad opterons. >>>> >>>>:) >>>> >>>>Isn't that "equal" by any reasonable definition? :) >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>How much better is questionable, but it's obviously not 8x. ;) >>>>> >>>>>>The more interesting question is if Rebel is able to get better result than >>>>>>Crafty in the premier division. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>> >>>;) They are not running on "equal" hardware if one is using 4 cpus and the >>>other is using only one cpu. I have several hundred blitz games of Crafty 19.7 >>>vs Rebel 12 on 2 XP2400+ machines/auto232. I call that equal hardware. In that >>>case Rebel has a slight advantage on Crafty of maybe 30-40 Elo. (According to >>>the few hundred games so far). >>>Jim >> >> >>That is a bad definition of "equal hardware". IE if two programs run on a >>PIV 3.06ghz processor, but one uses SSE and the other doesn't, is _that_ >>also not equal? Or one uses hyper-threading and the other doesn't? >> >>"equal hardware" means "platforms are identical". What a program gets out >>of those equal platforms is another matter. >> >>It takes effort to use that "extra stuff". I played a couple of challenge >>matches years ago when someone would say "Hey, you are using a Cray, if I >>had something that fast, I could play equal to or better than you." I had >>them send me their code, I compiled and we played on the same machine, no >>pondering, one cpu each. What they overlooked was that I had invested a >>lot of work getting the vector hardware to help me. They hadn't. So on >>"equal hardware" I was 20x faster than they were and the match was not >>that pretty. >> >>Doing a parallel search takes time. Does it seem reasonable that my opponent >>uses an extra year to improve his evaluation, while I use an extra year to get >>a good parallel search done, then we say "your parallel search is an unfair >>adevantage?" >> >>It's a different way of thinking about it when you think about it. Those >>extra CPUs don't just magically make the program faster without a _lot_ of >>design effort and programming work. > >:) >There is no denying that you have put in a lot of work on Crafty. I and many >others really appreciate what you have done. That still does not make 1=4. I >wish I had a quad or even a dual to run the "deep" programs on but I don't. >Maybe when the price comes down a little I can get something not quite on the >leading edge that I can afford. In the mean time, for me, 1=1 and 4 is 4x >larger than 1. :) >I said a few years ago that Crafty was showing the way for others to go in chess >because I believed that CPUs have a practical upper limit of Ghz. So eventually >all will have to go to multiple cpu operation for more speed. >Again I salute your work but it does not make 1=4. :) >Happy Hollidays, >Jim Hint: Hardware equality has _nothing_ to do with software. Nor operating system. Nor the phase of the moon. Hardware equality can be determined with _no_ electricity whatsoever.
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.