Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:44:01 01/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 1999 at 11:19:52, G.Mueller wrote: >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 the results I gave bruce were crafty version 15.20... not 16.anything... although I could run that test... Your idea about the two programs on a single cpu is good, and one I have already suggested. A multiple-cpu compile (bionic or crafty) will run with one cpu with no problems... just don't do the mt=2 command. It will then use just one cpu and not act so funny...
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.