Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:45:43 05/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 2004 at 12:19:13, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >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? I don't know what any of that refers to. My formula came from running the BK test (23 positions, excluding #1 an instant mate in 3). I am trying to get the disk set up and installed now that I sent to AMD for the last CCT event. While I had access, I ran the BK test to get the data. I had promised Martin that I would post the numbers. But you _really_ need a better vocabulary. I have not tried to "contradict 2.8". I have _clearly_ said that the speedup varies and that 3.1 is the value suggested by a linear approximation fit to a non-linear function. I do _not_ understand the obsession with "is it 2.8 or 3.1"? It could well be _both_. I have _always_ called this an approximation. Let me get the log files and grep the times for Martin. I'll put the logs on my ftp machine since they will be fairly long, if you want to see the opteron data for 1-4. > >>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 0.01 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.