Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Opinions? A Crafty experiment...

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 12:08:13 05/24/04

Go up one level in this thread


On May 24, 2004 at 14:12:10, Slater Wold wrote:

>On May 24, 2004 at 14:09:56, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On May 24, 2004 at 12:56:56, Slater Wold wrote:
>>
>>>On May 24, 2004 at 12:29:04, Russell Reagan wrote:
>>>
>>>>On May 24, 2004 at 12:06:46, Slater Wold wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In a thread below, there is a post about Blargh, ICCs top computer.  It has won
>>>>>60% of its games at standard time controls, and only lost 16% in almost 3,000
>>>>>games!
>>>>>
>>>>>I am interested to know the OoO (opinion of outcome) of EVERYONE at the
>>>>>following experiment, I will be in contact with the operator of Blargh, and will
>>>>>try to set this up.
>>>>>
>>>>>Crafty 19.13 on an AMD FX53 (64-bit) vs Shredder 8 on a Dual Opteron 2.2Ghz
>>>>>(32-bit)
>>>>>
>>>>>10 game match.  120/0.
>>>>>
>>>>>Opinions?
>>>>
>>>>Crafty on equal hardware probably doesn't stand a realistic chance against
>>>>Shredder. Only Fritz scores at least 45% against Shredder on the latest SSDF.
>>>>Junior and Hiarcs score at least 40%. Crafty would be behind those engines on
>>>>equal hardware by a non-trivial margin (take the Junior-Crafty 10x experiment
>>>>for example).
>>>
>>>OoO please...
>>>
>>>>What is interesting about a Shredder-Crafty match where Crafty is at a hardware
>>>>_disadvantage_?
>>>>
>>>>BTW, that really explains a lot about why he is #1 on ICC. You have a freakin'
>>>>FX53 and you're at a hardware disadvantage! Wow...
>>>
>>>It's a disadvantage, but a small one.  How small?
>>
>>It is at least 2x disadvantage.
>>
>>You did notice that box is a _dual_???
>
>Dual.  And 32-bit.
>
>>Shredder has an SMP version which I would assume he is using...
>>
>>>Crafty on a 2.2Ghz Opteron in 32-bit gets about 1.5M NPS.  With a 1.89 speedup,
>>>we get 2.8M nps.  My FX53 (64-bit) will do 2.6M.  It's at a 8% HW disadvantage.
>>>
>>>8% means nothing in a 120/0 game.
>>
>>Where are those numbers coming from?
>>
>>
>>Crafty on a 2.2ghz opteron gets >2M on linux with GCC.  With windows it is
>>closer to 2.3M on a single opteron CPU...
>
>My 2.4Ghz FX doesn't get 2.3M 32-bit.  Where are you getting these numbers?

Running in the last CCT the bench command was doing 2M.  I posted the numbers
here at some point.  My log files for the DTS positions (on my ftp machine in
the smpdata directory) shows that the first DTS position starts at 1.9M nodes
per second.  Here are the actual one-cpu runs:

medusa% grep nps cbrun*0
              time=5:00  cpu=99%  mat=-3  n=570081156  fh=92%  nps=1.90M
              time=5:00  cpu=99%  mat=-3  n=572380305  fh=93%  nps=1.91M
              time=5:00  cpu=99%  mat=-2  n=601305165  fh=92%  nps=2.00M
              time=5:00  cpu=99%  mat=-2  n=665116633  fh=95%  nps=2.22M
              time=5:00  cpu=99%  mat=-1  n=650939746  fh=94%  nps=2.17M
              time=5:00  cpu=99%  mat=-2  n=657190763  fh=93%  nps=2.19M
              time=5:00  cpu=99%  mat=-2  n=671293016  fh=93%  nps=2.24M
              time=5:00  cpu=99%  mat=1  n=649961387  fh=92%  nps=2.17M
              time=5:00  cpu=99%  mat=-1  n=641706498  fh=91%  nps=2.14M
              time=5:00  cpu=99%  mat=-1  n=635992282  fh=92%  nps=2.12M
              time=5:00  cpu=99%  mat=0  n=687746721  fh=92%  nps=2.29M
              time=5:00  cpu=99%  mat=0  n=697967569  fh=92%  nps=2.33M
              time=5:00  cpu=99%  mat=0  n=682278911  fh=92%  nps=2.27M
              time=5:00  cpu=99%  mat=0  n=680641307  fh=91%  nps=2.27M
              time=5:00  cpu=99%  mat=0  n=705501897  fh=92%  nps=2.35M
              time=5:00  cpu=99%  mat=5  n=711992860  fh=91%  nps=2.37M
              time=5:00  cpu=99%  mat=0  n=680627671  fh=91%  nps=2.27M
              time=5:00  cpu=99%  mat=0  n=684408845  fh=91%  nps=2.28M
              time=5:00  cpu=99%  mat=-1  n=672072349  fh=91%  nps=2.24M
              time=5:00  cpu=99%  mat=-1  n=639020200  fh=89%  nps=2.13M
              time=5:00  cpu=99%  mat=-1  n=626508871  fh=88%  nps=2.09M
              time=5:00  cpu=99%  mat=-1  n=652655813  fh=89%  nps=2.18M
              time=5:00  cpu=99%  mat=-1  n=646700868  fh=89%  nps=2.16M
              time=5:00  cpu=99%  mat=-1  n=644620982  fh=88%  nps=2.15M

As you can see, I am _not_ guessing here...

Here are dual numbers:

              time=5:00  cpu=199%  mat=-3  n=1125716661  fh=92%  nps=3.75M
              time=5:00  cpu=199%  mat=-3  n=1143745837  fh=93%  nps=3.81M
              time=5:00  cpu=199%  mat=-2  n=1170889476  fh=93%  nps=3.90M
              time=5:00  cpu=199%  mat=-2  n=1295137485  fh=95%  nps=4.32M
              time=5:00  cpu=199%  mat=-1  n=1306020483  fh=94%  nps=4.35M
              time=5:00  cpu=199%  mat=-2  n=1312034042  fh=93%  nps=4.37M
              time=5:00  cpu=199%  mat=-2  n=1334565314  fh=94%  nps=4.45M
              time=5:00  cpu=199%  mat=1  n=1275333138  fh=92%  nps=4.25M
              time=5:00  cpu=199%  mat=-1  n=1252428376  fh=91%  nps=4.17M
              time=5:00  cpu=199%  mat=-1  n=1263898857  fh=92%  nps=4.21M
              time=5:00  cpu=199%  mat=0  n=1344520663  fh=92%  nps=4.48M
              time=5:00  cpu=199%  mat=0  n=1360924345  fh=92%  nps=4.54M
              time=5:00  cpu=199%  mat=0  n=1322792409  fh=91%  nps=4.41M
              time=5:00  cpu=199%  mat=0  n=1313789012  fh=91%  nps=4.38M
              time=5:00  cpu=199%  mat=0  n=1339933480  fh=91%  nps=4.47M
              time=5:00  cpu=199%  mat=5  n=1341070056  fh=91%  nps=4.47M
              time=5:00  cpu=199%  mat=0  n=1302945219  fh=91%  nps=4.34M
              time=5:00  cpu=199%  mat=0  n=1309092015  fh=91%  nps=4.36M
              time=5:00  cpu=199%  mat=-1  n=1281171538  fh=90%  nps=4.27M
              time=5:00  cpu=199%  mat=-1  n=1234130301  fh=89%  nps=4.11M
              time=5:00  cpu=199%  mat=-1  n=1203620866  fh=88%  nps=4.01M
              time=5:00  cpu=199%  mat=-1  n=1257942664  fh=88%  nps=4.19M
              time=5:00  cpu=199%  mat=-1  n=1257366699  fh=88%  nps=4.19M
              time=5:00  cpu=199%  mat=-1  n=1253818748  fh=88%  nps=4.18M

And here are some 4-cpu numbers:

              time=5:00  cpu=397%  mat=-3  n=2214294718  fh=92%  nps=7.38M
              time=5:00  cpu=398%  mat=-3  n=2275918132  fh=93%  nps=7.59M
              time=5:00  cpu=398%  mat=-2  n=2324669850  fh=93%  nps=7.75M
              time=5:00  cpu=354%  mat=-2  n=2569040102  fh=95%  nps=8.56M
              time=5:00  cpu=398%  mat=-1  n=2483899624  fh=93%  nps=8.28M
              time=5:00  cpu=396%  mat=-2  n=2524386780  fh=93%  nps=8.41M
              time=5:00  cpu=398%  mat=-2  n=2625619952  fh=93%  nps=8.75M
              time=5:00  cpu=399%  mat=1  n=2533565587  fh=92%  nps=8.45M
              time=5:00  cpu=399%  mat=-1  n=2471614867  fh=91%  nps=8.24M
              time=5:00  cpu=398%  mat=-1  n=2485704184  fh=92%  nps=8.29M
              time=5:00  cpu=398%  mat=0  n=2669553594  fh=91%  nps=8.90M
              time=5:00  cpu=398%  mat=0  n=2695287412  fh=92%  nps=8.98M
              time=5:00  cpu=397%  mat=0  n=2552217576  fh=91%  nps=8.51M
              time=5:00  cpu=398%  mat=0  n=2584530982  fh=91%  nps=8.62M
              time=5:00  cpu=398%  mat=0  n=2641396390  fh=91%  nps=8.80M
              time=5:00  cpu=397%  mat=5  n=2620717407  fh=91%  nps=8.74M
              time=5:00  cpu=397%  mat=0  n=2568920255  fh=91%  nps=8.56M
              time=5:00  cpu=396%  mat=0  n=2542256969  fh=91%  nps=8.47M
              time=5:00  cpu=396%  mat=-1  n=2494151402  fh=90%  nps=8.31M
              time=5:00  cpu=396%  mat=-1  n=2388262254  fh=88%  nps=7.96M
              time=5:00  cpu=394%  mat=-1  n=2333202169  fh=88%  nps=7.78M
              time=5:00  cpu=395%  mat=-1  n=2451027666  fh=88%  nps=8.17M
              time=5:00  cpu=396%  mat=-1  n=2475641449  fh=88%  nps=8.25M
              time=5:00  cpu=396%  mat=-1  n=2446281739  fh=88%  nps=8.15M

No guesswork required...




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.