Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 09:19:13 05/06/04
I hope you don't mean the ones blow. Are you still claiming you 'measured' 3.1 which supposedly contradicts the 2.8 I measured? >Return-Path: <gcp@sjeng.org> >X-XS4ALL-To: <diep@maildrop.xs4all.nl> >Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 09:14:59 +0200 (MEST) >From: Gian-Carlo Pascutto <gcp@sjeng.org> >X-Sender: <giancarlo@garf.natrese.be> >To: "Robert M. Hyatt" <hyatt@cis.uab.edu> >Cc: <diep@xs4all.nl> >Subject: Re: Parallel results so far > > > >On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Robert M. Hyatt wrote: > >> Here is the results: >> >> ----------------------------------------------- >> ---null=2/3--- ---null=off--- >> position 1cpu 4cpu S/U 1cpu 4cpu S/U >> kopec 21 27.9 10.7 2.6 30.3 12.4 2.4 >> kopec 22 22.5 6.1 3.8 26.0 7.5 3.5 >> kopec 23 33.5 11.2 3.0 20.9 6.4 3.3 >> kopec 24 18.1 6.0 3.0 26.2 8.3 3.1 >> >> ----------------------------------------------- >> note. all positions were searched for 30-45 seconds >> with the last 1-cpu output used to measure how long >> the 4-cpu search took to reach the same output (say >> the end of a search, or a PV move and score displayed). >> >> Vincent claimed "I never ran this test." Thought I would >> run it _again_ just to expose "baloney". >> >> I think the conclusion from the above is > >Conlusions from the above? Howso? > > speedup >Nullmove 3.1 +- 0.25 >Non-nullmove 3.1 +- 0.25 > >The standard errors (1SD) are way too huge to allow what >you try to conclude. I measured a speedup of 2.85 with >nullmove and 3.1 without, whereas your test wouldn't even >be able to differentiate between the two. > >If you want to scientifically settle this, >you'll need more and better data. > >(I couldn't find the CCC article reffered to earlier) > >-- >GCP
This page took 0.02 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.