Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 15:03:50 09/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2004 at 17:50:06, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >On September 09, 2004 at 17:37:04, Matthew Hull wrote: > >>On September 09, 2004 at 17:25:54, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >> >>>On September 09, 2004 at 17:17:49, Matthew Hull wrote: >>> >>>>On September 09, 2004 at 17:11:35, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 09, 2004 at 15:20:49, Matthew Hull wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On September 09, 2004 at 15:13:25, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On September 08, 2004 at 20:52:31, Dan Honeycutt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On September 08, 2004 at 14:43:43, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>The average level of discussion in WCCC is several hundred Elo above that of >>>>>>>>>CCC. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>That's logical since everyone there is an experienced chess programmer whereas >>>>>>>>CCC caters to all levels. However, are there topics that you would be willing >>>>>>>>to discuss at WCCC that you would not be willing to discuss at CCC? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Most of the discussions here are relevant to under 2300 rated programs, and >>>>>>>rarely any ideas of further use are discussed here. In WCCC when you play versus >>>>>>>another engine, you always engage in some form of discusson with the programmer >>>>>>>sitting on the other side of the table, or when you are in a restaurant you also >>>>>>>speak about computer-chess issues with other programmers, etc. Of course most >>>>>>>programmers don't discuss the details of their "weapon of mass destruction", but >>>>>>>the discussion level is much higher, and many subjects that are brought up there >>>>>>>never appear on CCC. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I don't understand what your question has to do with the post you replied to, >>>>>but here are the answers anyway: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>I was just trying to elevate the level of discussion on CCC. >>>> >>>>:) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>So, to how many processors have you scaled Falcon? >>>>> >>>>>Currently 4 processors is the maximum. >>>>> >>>>>>Will it run on 8+ NUMA machine? >>>>> >>>>>No, I don't have acces to such a machine. >>>>> >>>>>>Is it portable (like GNU or Crafty) or is it limited to Windows? >>>>> >>>>>Yes. Most of my parallel tests are on Linux. >>>>> >>>>>Any more questions? :) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Can you post speedup data? We know what Bob has reported. >>>> >>>>Also, is speedup the same for SMP and NUMA? >>> >>>I told you, I don't have access to NUMA machine. >> >> >>Can you post speedup numbers? Perhaps some logs? >> >>What strategy do you use to split the search? Were there any papers that were >>of help to you in the development process? > >Is it an interrogation of some kind? :) You asked earlier if their were any more questions. :) Not many amateurs (or even some pros) are attempting parrallel search. Also, not everyone uses the same strategy, for example: threads (Crafty) versus processes (Sjeng, DIEP). I think a lot of people are interested in parrallel efficiency. Some have posted their data on this. Are you still working on this aspect? Do you use the ICC compiler for Linux or some other? Do you feel that you have some methods that are of your own discovery, and so perhaps not used in other programs? We all suspect there are some secrets in commercial programs. However, I wonder if their real "secret" is that they are more harmoniously tuned in the evaluation. It seems that this is a major benefit that takes a great deal of effort to achieve.
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.