Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:04:25 05/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2004 at 16:39:29, Robert C Gates wrote: >On May 19, 2004 at 10:51:41, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On May 19, 2004 at 10:18:01, Ingo Althofer wrote: >> >>>In the Leiden tournament (in April 2004) Hydra was terribly bashed by Shredder. >>>Perhaps after that they only play in events without Shredder. ;) >>> >>>Ingo Althofer. >> >>I feel we must not be too hard judging the hydra team. It's the sheikh who >>doesn't want to join in Israel. I'm sure the entire team wants to. >> >>However any claim that Hydra is the strongest chess program on earth must be >>forgotten. It was very lucky in Leiden in many games. I'm sure the quick level >>of 90 0 and majority of participants not using big hardware has lead to Hydra >>scoring more points than it based upon what it showed earned IMHO. >> >>Basically the ultra agressive speculative evaluation which Hydra uses to play >>means it will never win a world title. Ultra agressive behaviour has 2 >>advantages : >> a) you kill every bad tested program with big bugs left in eval (especially >>king safety) thanks to agressive attack and big search depth. >> b) it has a nice playing style. attack attack without looking back... >> >>It has 1 major disadvantage: >> a) it is incorrect and will simply lose in future >> >>Note that there is a subtle but important difference between agressive play and >>speculative agressive play. >> >>So time is running out slowly for Hydra now. 1 chip is not so slow now compared >>to software, but next year it will be when the dual opterons at 1 chip start to >>arrive. >> >>The software guys all will profit from hashtables a lot at opteron and each >>generation getting faster we profit a lot. >> >>Hardware however doesn't profit from all that. Last 6 plies no hashtables for >>Hydra... >> >>Hydra's parallel search doesn't scale to more processors easily when compared to >>software using a hashtable. Moving from 8 to 16 processors i didn't see it >>search deeper actually (i forgot to ask during ict4 how many processors used, >>frankly i didn't care at that moment). >> >>So in 2010 they probably will be still 16 processor clocked at 33Mhz. >> >>Perhaps one time an update to 66Mhz and PCI-X myrinet cards (3 us one way ping >>pong latency versus the current ones it has are like 8 us). >> >>So in 2004 world champs the hardware advantage from hydra would be not there, >>but in 2005 for sure also gone against many non-world champs participants. >> >>What is left is a strong program definitely in world top and of course eyes >>closed crushes software like crafty (even when using just 1 hardware processor, > > What do you mean Crushes programs Like Crafty? Crafty is one of the Best >around. > > Vincent never passes up an opportunity to take a swipe at any program he can't beat through programming effort of his own... > > > > >>because eval just matters). >> >>However it is outdated right now IMHO. >> >>It's advantage IMHO was using 8-16 processors, not for being in hardware. >> >>And knowing the parallel skills of the university paderborn (feldman & co) >>adding more processors we can only expect a slowdown. >> >>When running at 460 processors with diep i did several experiments turning off >>hashtable last few plies and had very discouraging results there. >> >>Note that Feldmann correctly had already concluded this years ago (that one >>*needs* to do hashtable lookups everywhere; for me it is amazing that Feldmann >>could draw so many correct conclusions with such bad software implementations).
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.