Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 15:06:59 02/02/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 02, 2004 at 11:47:08, Colin Frayn wrote: >On February 02, 2004 at 10:30:29, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On February 02, 2004 at 07:29:19, Colin Frayn wrote: >> >>Where can i find the logfile from this game showing search depths from >>chessbrain, so that i can compare at home with a single cpu engine? > >We didn't store everything so it's unlikely that this could be found. I don't >know exact figures, but I can certainly tell you that during testing we were >finding the move b6! in WAC100 in well under a minute with a few hundred >PeerNodes whereas standalone Beowulf on my machine couldn't find it within 10 >minutes at the time. Part of the benefit of much more memory being thrown at This says nothing. The 8 processor version of DIEP finds Nxh6 in Nolot testset at 7 ply already and the single cpu diep version needs 10. So the difference is a factor 100 in speed there or so. This is exactly what you show here. The best case. This is not interesting. The logfile of the game showing the root search depth is interesting. Like most programs show in their pgns stuff like 25.Rc3 0.11/14 So that was 0.11 score at 14 ply search depth. I'm interested in seeing that. What i then use is Speedup = min(calculate_speedup(allmoves)). The rest is not interesting. >the problem, even if it was not linked together. > >>I am very interested knowing in how much of a speedup efficiency you get out of >>the thing. > >At the moment it's hideously inefficient - I noticed that when (for the first >time) I saw the thing running the night before the match! At some points we >were wasting almost a minute each move (that I now know about, and we can fix) > >>When i ran a simulation with diep distributed at the supercomputer at 460 >>processors, the speedup was not so good. > >It's certainly not a huge speedup at the moment, but we've got a lot of possible >avenues for improvement, that's for sure. All I know is that Beo is a 2400 >engine at best, probably worse, and we got a better performance than that, at >least after the first few out-of-book moves (which weren't very strong). > >Search depth is also complicated because if, e.g., the server sends out a node >at ply 2 and it searches for 8 ply depth, this isn't the same as searching the >root position to 10 ply because we're being much more creative with the depth of >search and pruning etc, so the exact search depth is quite variable along the >first ply. > >>Good luck in your effort finding sponsors. > >Thanks. Hopefully we won't need luck any more.... > >Cheers, >Col
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.