Author: Peter Berger
Date: 15:45:21 12/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 2003 at 11:32:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 23, 2003 at 06:39:22, Peter Berger wrote: > >>On December 22, 2003 at 22:59:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >Several _possible_ machines. One here in Alabama, 64-way Itanium. Another >was a 64-way alpha. Another choice was a 16-way opteron. I really didn't >investigate what I might use, because if you read the rules, they _really_ >want the author present, else it gets even _more_ expensive to enter which is >silly. > >There were other possibilities for machines, but it is pointless to start >bugging people about "what if" to see if a machine might be usable, when I >really was not considering going due to the length of the event.. > >The 16-way opteron is probably the slowest of the above machines, and it >would ring in at 32M+ nodes per second, up to 44M+ in endgames, based on >the 8-11M nps I saw on the 4-way box I played with for a while on ICC. It seems you have done additional work on parallel speed-up with many processors. I did some tests a longer time ago (17.11 ??) on Sparc platform ( I know you really hate it) with many processors, and Crafty *really* didn't scale too well when the number exceeded 4. Of course I am aware that this is a purely theoretical discussion. The ICGA requirement to be present as an author doesn't seem to get enforced that strongly anyway. Sending a book author would be sufficient I suppose. Peter
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.