Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:51:30 02/27/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 27, 2005 at 07:11:35, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On February 27, 2005 at 06:22:42, George Tsavdaris wrote: > >>On February 27, 2005 at 06:09:15, Sandro Necchi wrote: >> >>>On February 27, 2005 at 06:00:06, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >>> >>>>On February 27, 2005 at 05:54:35, Rex wrote: >>>> >>>>>With all that was learned out of IPCCC I sure would like a "free" update. >>>>> >>>>>Enjoy >>>> >>>> I am almost sure that there will be no such update. >>>> At Paderborn an experimental version of Shredder 9 >>>> is participating and nobody knows about the real >>>> playing strength of it. >>>> Kurt >>> >>> >>>No, we have used the same 9.0 version. >>> >>>We only used a modified book for the tournament...an intermediate version for >>>the next WCCC or match against Hydra hoping someone can arrange it. >>> >> >> I really hope a match between Shredder and Hydra, now that you know the huge >>strength of the second and you will be prepared properly. > >Yes, last year we could not prepare properly also because I was very busy with >my work and to move to Lucca. >Now we are more and I am planning to make more work too even if I am moving to >another house this summer, still in Lucca. >Also the bug problem, which I discovered, "made me crazy" trying to change the >book to avoid problems without having the time to do it. >With a reliable version is different as I can use the material which is ready >and add more to it. > >>But i would like a 14 >>or more games match, for having a good indication of the strength..... >> >> Since many believe that hardware differences is not so important as we think, >>while i believe that in this high level even small hardware differences can make >>the difference, can you give an approximation of the expected ELO difference >>between: >>"Shredder+Dual" , "Shredder+Quad" , "Shredder+8 CPU's" , "Shredder+16 >>CPU's"....? > >Well, we need to improve this as only 2 processors are used fully and the others >partially only. >Stefan did not have time enough to work on this, so he can improve this a lot >spending time enough. > >I believe what follows, comparing with one processor only: > >1. Dual = +30 Elo >2. Quad = +40 Elo >3. 8 cpus = +50 Elo (we did not used this harware yet) >4. 16 cpus = are not supported yet as the max is 8. > >P.N. > >1. these are estimates by me as I have no data to support this rather than my >impression looking the games. >2. These data are referred to a 32 bit program version, and not fully optimized >to use more than 2 processors. This means that there is a lot of room for >improvements. >3. The program strenght does not improve very much because if Shredder does not >find a solution in a reasonable time it will take very long to find it. This can >be improved too. Does 3 mean that the program is relatively weaker in correspondence games relative to what you expect or the problem is only in case of using more than one processor? Is 3 specific problem of shredder9 or also a problem of older versions? It seems to me that there is a problem with shredder9 search based on the following analysis(without KBP vs KP but with all of the 4 piece tablebase and 5 piece tablebases with no pawns and KPP vs KP) http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?414099 I wonder if there is general problem with recovering from fail low with shredder9 or this is a problem only in that specific endgame. Thanks for your information. 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.