Author: G.Mueller
Date: 08:19:52 01/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 1999 at 10:45:51, Albrecht Heeffer wrote: >On January 29, 1999 at 09:23:15, G.Mueller wrote: > >>On January 29, 1999 at 08:28:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 29, 1999 at 02:31:21, Albrecht Heeffer wrote: >>> >>>>On January 28, 1999 at 15:56:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>note that some of the positions end up in tablebases. I don't know what they >>>>>used, but I used none, because of the format change from 15.20 to 16.0. As a >>>>>result, I ran with no tablebase hits possible... >>>> >>>>We did use the old tablebases (72). In the log files you can see the probes. >>>>In fact we probably saved the Kallisto game from a draw by the tablesbases. >>>>The endgame was was winning but Bionic did not play the best moves until >>>>suddenly: >>>> >>>> 13 6.31 fhigh Kd6!! >>>> 13-> 7.20 6.62 Kd6 >>>> 14 7.58 fhigh Kd6!! >>>> 14-> 13.08 7.01 Kd6 >>>> 15 13.26 fhigh Kd6!! >>>> 15 17.08 Mat28 Kd6 Kg7 Ke6 f5 Bf3 Kh6 Kf6 Kh7 Bc6 >>>> Kh6 Bd7 <HT> >>>> time=23.65 cpu=196% mat=2 n=9446180 fh=98% nps=399415 >>>> ext-> checks=236796 recaps=13251 pawns=234693 1rep=184173 >>>> predicted=37 nodes=9446180 evals=3370257 >>>> endgame tablebase-> probes done=137165 successful=137159 >>>> hashing-> trans/ref=111% pawn=99% used=w29% b37% >>>> SMP-> split=2503 stop=80 data=8/64 cpu=46.52 elap=23.65 >>>> >>>>mate in 28 moves. >>>> >>>>>If someone has a PII/400 they can run on, I can run crafty on one processor at >>>>>1 minute per position, and they could run bionic the same way. A PII/400 and >>>>>my xeon/400 are close to the same speed. that would be the best comparison >>>>>unless one person wants to run both bionic _and_ wcrafty_15.20.exe (from my >>>>>ftp site) on the same box, which would be even better... >>>>> >>>>>I'd much prefer that to eliminate all variables. the SMP code produces some >>>>>odd results at times, and my linux version is 15% slower than the corresponding >>>>>windows executable due to MSVC being a better compiler. All in all, too many >>>>>different things... >>>> >>>>The results so far do not seem to indicate that Crafty 15.20 plays all >>>>the same moves as the Bionic games in the Dutch Open. I'm still wondering >>>>how you were able to reproduce all the right moves in three games with >>>>Crafty 16.1 on your hardware. Did you use SMP then? >>>> >>>>Albrecht Heeffer >>> >>> >>>No. What I did was search for 10 minutes per position, and if the >>>programs matched after a minute or more, I counted it as a match. I >>>then looked at the very few where they didn't match. In a couple of >>>cases there were simple transpositions that evaluated to the same score >>>and pre-processing could affect that by changing the root move order. >>>If crafty's move and bionic's move had the same score, and roughly the >>>same PV I counted those as matches. Finally, in a couple of cases it >>>was obvious that they had the same idea, just different ways to reach >>>that... The pv's were similar but in different order (notably in a >>>couple of endgame positions where there were no real tactics to consider.) >>> >>>But notice that 'bionic' is not matching 'bionic-tournament' very well, >>>when you think about it. The web site version matched 77% of the moves, >>>while version 15.20 matched 74%. Everyone else is well back from that. >>>And I was searching faster than the bionic in the tournament, and the >>>one tested here, which is why I suggested someone run 15.20 and bionic >>>on the _same_ hardware and do this test. That would be better... >>Hello Bob! >> >>You are right I do remark same on my single Xeon overclockt to 504 Mhz with 1MB >>2.level Cache, the downloadable bionic is never the same version that played in >>Dutch Championchip, it matches about 80%, Crafty 16.1 in about 75%, do not test >>with TB. A download from the originally Dutchversion would be very nice to >>answer all this difficult questions. >>In Dualuse (i test on a Quadxeon with mt=2) Bionic seems evident fast as Crafty >>16.1 on single it is slower. But a Quadmachine is not really good for testing a >>dual machine I know, but bionic is compiled with two CPUS. >> >>Best wishes to you Bob! >>G.Mueller > >After the tournament I burned a CD-R with the complete directory image >of all sources, executables and log files. The version on the website >'bionic41.exe' is ftp'd directly from the CD onto the web site. It _is_ >the same version as used during both weekends of the tournament, I >can assure you. The SMP code must be very indeterministic if we can't >reproduce the moves somehow. > >Albrecht Heeffer Hello Albrecht! This is a possibilty maybe Bob can tell us, if it is so with his SMP technic. But if it is so the high match rate from Crafty 16_1 is very remarkable in my opinion. Maybe you can compile a single processor version and then we can compare to single versions from crafty and bionic, this would give more reproducable results I think. Best wishes G.Mueller
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.