Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:49:07 05/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 03, 2004 at 02:14:53, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On May 02, 2004 at 18:49:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 02, 2004 at 18:23:44, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On May 02, 2004 at 13:12:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>He sent me an email trying to justify his poor performance. He first claimed >>>>that it was an artifact of null-move. Testing disproved that. >>> >>>What testing? >>> >>>-- >>>GCP >> >> >>The testing you and I both did. It showed a minimal speedup difference if you >>recall. 2.8 vs 3.1... not _that_ significant... > >2.8 for with nullmove >3.0 for without nullmove > >A major difference. based upon 30+ positions. > >And both not *close* to speedup(n) = 1.0 + 0.7(n-1) 2.8 is close to 3.1. In fact, I sent you the log for _my_ run on my quad 700 that produced 3.0 for those positions. GCP ran the same positions on one of my quad 550s he was using and got 2.8. I'd say that 3.0 is very close to 3.1. And that 2.8 is not that far away. Of course, use speedup = 1 + (NCPUS -1) * .6 if it makes you feel better, since you can't grasp non-deterministic search time any better than you can grasp anything else...
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.