Author: Mark Young
Date: 04:57:00 02/27/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 27, 2005 at 07:51:30, Uri Blass wrote: >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. Shredder is not the only program that has problems with this endgame position. Some programs get it, and some are clueless. > >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.