Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:43:23 08/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2004 at 17:14:32, Gerd Isenberg wrote: >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 really can't make an educated guess. A cluster will be less efficient than a pure SMP box. But to take this in "pieces" we might get a number that is reasonable. IE 8 nodes. I'd think that if it was 4x faster with 8 nodes that would be a win. Since the nodes have to talk via message-passing, sharing the hash table will be a problem. 4x faster would be worth doing. Inside a node, there are two FPGA boards as I understand this. I don't know how much of the search is done in one of these FPGA boards, but whatever it is, there is an efficiency loss with no hashing going on. Of course I don't hash in the q-search, and I believe Amir has said he doesn't hash in the last normal ply of his search either, so perhaps this is not a killer. The main problem is that this hardware apparently has to do a fixed-depth search, which limits split points and accumulates significant amounts of "idle time" (ie if it is necessary to only do hardware searches at ply=N, sometimes ply=N is an ALL node and the parallel search will work well, othertimes it is a CUT node and parallel search won't work at all. What they lose to deal with this I don't know. But I'd guess that 1.5x would be a number I would be happy with. That makes your 6X faster (rather than 16X the theoretical max) a fairly decent guess, although it _is_ still a guess. But 6x times 3M nodes per second is still faster than any current programs on 4-way opterons. I've passed that speed on 8-way boxes (and beyond) but that hardware is pretty rare to come by. They are no doubt very strong. >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.