Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:15:29 12/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 28, 2003 at 15:58:40, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On December 27, 2003 at 14:05:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 27, 2003 at 12:36:32, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: >> >>>On December 27, 2003 at 09:04:05, Sune Fischer wrote: >>> >>>>On December 27, 2003 at 04:58:51, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: >>>> >>>>>4) Even with a 1:10 or 1:8 advantage crafty only barely manages to catch up or >>>>>beat these top order programs - so not much of a chance if they show up with the >>>>>above mentioned machines. >>>> >>>>I believe you are jumping to conclusions with "not much of a chance.." :) >>>> >>>>Crafty seems to be more than just barely holding on, it seems to be winning >>>>these matches at 8-10x speed advantage. >>>>That would mean Crafty still has chances even with "only" a 4x speed advantage. >>>> >>>>I'm not saying it would be a favorite but it's enough of a lottery to say that >>>>there are chances, and who knows what kind of hardware Bob could get his hands >>>>on ;) >>>> >>>>-S. >>>>>Mridul >>> >>>True - a good opening line which is favourale to crafty - and it could win even >>>with a 1 : 2 disadvantage :) >>>But it should be a good line - and this is like a jackpot - we cant count on >>>this ;) >>>On a even position - with lots of possibilities (not one of those dead drawn >>>boring opening lines) - it would be tougher. >>>If 1:8 just barely helps - then 1:4 is going to be a real challenge - also note >>>- it is going to be lower than 1:4 - not even 1:4 >>> >>>Mridul >> >>That's wrong. Pick your current box. I can _certainly_ find something that >>will be 4x faster than any box that showed up at the WCCC this year. And that > >But nothing where crafty runs at, so i laugh loud for this! What about an 8-way or 16-way opteron box? It _certainly_ runs on those. I ran on a 4-way box off and on for a couple of weeks. I will run on an 8-way and post some numbers here pretty soon, perhaps if I have time > >You cry some about a few minute tests you were allowed to do at a 32 processor >shared memory bus Alpha. Show the logs, no one is believing you here! > Really doesn't matter to me what you believe. You believe clusters can't work. You believe that parallel programming can't work one year, the next year you believe it can produce a speed up greater than the number of processors, then you believe you have bugs, then you believe ... It really doesn't matter what you believe, when you think about it. What matters is what I _know_ about what I have _done_. >Note the crafty-junior match, i score at home 95% against junior in tests equal >hardware, you have problems getting 50% against an outdated PII. I am +sure+ everyone believes that 95% crap. Why did you do so badly at the WCCC then? Give me a break... > >However when they show up at world champs they use quite a better book... ...try >to beat that i'd say! > >So show up at world champs instead of spitting all this crap here. Everyone i >knows wins from other programs when they test at home. But at world champs they >show up with their best version and best book and then beating everyone is a lot >harder!! There's a reason for that, but I won't bother explaining what it is... > >All other tournaments usually get organized, except IPCCC are a joke further. > >>is the reference point for this "test"... "would crafty be competitive." >> >>"competitive" does _not_ mean "win every game". "competitive" means having >>a significant chance of winning. Even 1 out of 3 is significant and 8:1 >>certainly gives better than that. You need to study the math of a Swiss >>event. The probability for winning each round gets multiplied to give the >>probability of winning every round. If someone has a 75% chance of winning >>each and every game, they have a vanishingly small chance of winning _all_ >>games. Which turns this into the aforementioned "lottery"... >> >>BTW .75 ^ 11 => .04% chance of winning all 11 rounds in Graz. :) >> >>And _nobody_ there had a 3:1 winning advantage over me on any hardware I >>would have used, the smallest machine would probably have been an 8-way >>opteron. That would have produced 12-22M nps. >> >>I'd take those odds... >> >>btw if you have 50% probability of winning a round, your chances of winning >>all 11 rounds is .0004%. Not that much different. Throw in one luck win >>vs one luck loss and there you go...
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.