Author: Gerd Isenberg
Date: 14:14:32 08/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2004 at 16:57:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 30, 2004 at 16:39:22, Mark Young wrote: > >>On August 30, 2004 at 15:33:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On August 30, 2004 at 14:51:01, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On August 30, 2004 at 13:51:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 30, 2004 at 12:24:54, Volker Böhm wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On August 30, 2004 at 10:02:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On August 30, 2004 at 08:30:34, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On August 30, 2004 at 08:12:52, Jouni Uski wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Eine FPGA-Karte untersucht momentan ca. 3 Millionen Positionen/Sekunde. 16 >>>>>>>>>Karten machen daher theoretisch 48 MPos/sec. (Donninger) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Jouni >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If Hydra made 48 Mpos/sec this again proves (in comparison >>>>>>>> with the 2 Mpos/sec on Quad-Opteron server with 4 CPU's of >>>>>>>> Shredder) that the number of pos/sec can't be taken as a >>>>>>>> reliable value for the goodness of a chess program. It's >>>>>>>> of course simply impossible to compare apples and organes. >>>>>>>> Kurt [http://www.utzingerk.com] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Don't forget that Hydra ripped Shredder's head off. So the NPS _might_ be >>>>>>>significant here... >>>>>> >>>>>>Didn´t I´ve heard you saying that 10 games are not enough to draw a >>>>>>statistically significant conclusion on the playing strength? >>>>>> >>>>>>Greetings Volker >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>With two _close_ opponents, correct. But if one is seriously stronger, as hydra >>>>>appeared to be, 10 games is plenty. >>>> >>>>We do not know if hydra is seriously stronger. >>> >>>We have a pretty good clue that it is. It is over 10x faster, potentially, than >>>other programs. >>> >>>1. I first assume that the programmer / designer is no dummy. >>> >>>2. all else being "equal" 10x faster is a _serious_ advantage. >>> >>>3. the above two points translate into a signficant strength advantage. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>You cannot start by assuming that hydra is significantly stronger when this is >>>>the question. >>> >>>With evidence, you can. IE I can certainly assume that Crafty on an 8-way >>>opteron is significantly stronger than Crafty on my dual xeon. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>If you see 10-0 you can say based on the result that Hydra is significantly >>>>stronger but when you see 5.5-2.5 you cannot claim it based on the result and >>>>you only can say that you do not know if it is significantly stronger based on >>>>the result. >>>> >>> >>> >>>If you only look at the results, maybe or maybe not. But I watched many of the >>>games with Crafty analyzing. That tells you even more. >> >>Common sense should tell us that Hydra is stronger. It should have a big >>hardware advantage. I think this is your point, and I agree. But I still need >>more data to be sure. Right now there is only a 1 in 6 chance that Hydra is the >>stronger program based on the games alone. > >Where does "one in six" come from? > >IE > >1. Hydra is at least 10x faster > >2. It won three and drew five if I recall. which is 5.5/8.0. which is right >at +200 on the Elo scale. > >Yes the number of games is low, but the 1 in 6 seems very weak. IE when you >consider _everything_. And don't forget that older versions (Brutus in >particular) played on ICC, and the current version is playing on playchess. >There are a lot of games. It is nowhere near invincible. But it is _very_ >strong compared to other programs. > >Of course I am not _sure_. But I an fairly well convinced. :) Yes, but Hydra had the advantage to prepare and tune againts a public available Shredder, while Shredder had not the chance. Anyway i am curious about Hydra's further speedups, and "fear" they will dominate the scene for some time. Current FPGAs they use, are still not the fastest. FPGAs may have more future speedgrowing as general purpose hardware for some time. More and "wider" chess "alus" for evaluation purposes. PCI express will speedup the hard- software communication. Even if it is not efficient, an additional ply in hardware is reasonable with respect to the possible PCI bottleneck. Do you have an idea about the parallel speedup of this 8*2 cluster, about six? I have no idea how well this message passing clusters scale with huge number of nodes >= 32 or 256,512 or 1024. Vincent was pessimistic about that, iirc. But it seems that internode bandwidth and latency has also some potential to become faster and faster to make bigger clusters more efficient. > > >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Uri
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.