Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 01:30:09 05/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 2004 at 12:45:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: Bob let's get realistic. BK is a flawed testset to test parallel speedups at. What happened is. You took 4 positions from that to 'proof' your 3.1. That gets disproven then by GCP doing statistical math where you know really less than a waterbird from. You do not even realize what the +- behind every measured speedup means. In fact you never provide them yourself. GCP then is doing different tests at your quads and very clearly determines 2.8 using a-symmetric king safety. My 1.0 out of 2 speedup for crafty came of course from using tests with symmetric king safety. But GCP using 30 positions gets down to 2.8 speedup. And he gets one time 3.2 and another time 3.0 for speedup when searching fullwidth. a) this shows how poor your way of representing things is. You are just showing things like you want them to see b) i do not believe a crap you did a honest test where at position 21 in BK the crafty on average gets a 2.4 speedup when searching fullwidth. No matter how i test fullwidth at position 21, speedups are better there for fullwidth using asymmetric king safety. You did not do a honest testing to get to your numbers, even in those 4 positions and yet you deny GCP's testing at 30 positions which were honestly done, to be true. This shows your true nature. >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 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.