Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:39:37 08/11/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 11, 2005 at 14:29:05, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>On August 11, 2005 at 13:59:11, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On August 11, 2005 at 11:36:17, A. Cozzie wrote:
>>
>>>Well I have taken my holiday from CCC to improve my program, but I'm flying out
>>>tomorrow and not going to make any big changes today, so its just a matter of
>>>packing up, and I have some free time to speculate. Quite frankly I think
>>>guessing who is going to score what in the WCCC might be more fun than playing
>>>with it, and unlike boxing programs can't use you ranking them poorly as
>>>motivation. So here goes:
>>>
>>>1. I'm predicting Junior to repeat. No one tests against Junior - they all test
>>>against Shredder.
>>>
>>>2. I'm predicting this is the year that Shredder finally falls into the middle
>>>of the pack. Shredder simply hasn't improved since 7.04. 7.04 was a great
>>>engine, but the rest of the world has caught up with him. In addition, Fruit is
>>>joining, and Fruit is hell for Shredder.
>>>
>>>3. I'm predicting Crafty and Diep both do pretty well, simply by virtue of
>>>hardware. 15M nps is nothing to write off easily, and Peter Berger with his
>>>blood contract with the devil will again get Crafty positions where it reacts
>>>well. On Diep's side, he might finally get a decent search depth, which has
>>>been Diep's achilles heel since time immemorial.
>>>
>>>4. I'm predicting Fruit only finishes in the middle of the pack. Fruit is a
>>>strong program, but it isn't parallel and my prediction is that it gets killed
>>>in the opening book at least 3 or 4 games and loses before it computes its first
>>>instruction.
>>>
>>>5. As for myself, my goal is to get 3rd. I'll be disappointed if Zappa finishes
>>>less than 5th, but I'm prepared for that :)
>>>
>>>anthony
>>
>>
>>I'm not predicting anything. Not really much point since the tournament starts
>>in a few days.
>>
>>For those not noticing, looks like the 4 x 875 opteron system is good to go.
>>Been testing last two nights on ICC and the parallel search is doing quite well
>>on the NUMA architecture, after a bit of modifying the source, and a bit of
>>tuning the crafty internal SMP parameters (splitting depth, max processors at
>>any single split point, etc.).
>
>Diep's parameters for parallel search:
> - maximum allowance of 32 cpu's in 1 position using the below rules:
> - minimum splitdepth of 3 ply
>
>SplitInOthers(..)
> /* uitvissen hoeveel procs er maximaal opgevraagd mogen worden ivm zettenlijst
>*/
> nprocs = (int)(rb->zetend-rb->current)-2;
>
> maxhere = MAXPOSPROCS-1; /* maximaal aantal cpu's parallel alhier */
> if( maxhere >= 31 ) {
> if( rb->ply <= 4 )
> maxhere = 7;
> else if( rb->ply <= 6 )
> maxhere = 15;
> else
> maxhere = 31;
> }
>
>So 8 cpu's are allowed in 1 pos if we have 3-4 ply,
>etc.
>
>>
>>I'm working on getting the last bit of scaling done so that the 8CPU nps will be
>>8.0x the 1 cpu nps. rather than the current 7.5X. I think I can finish this
>>today...
>
>Nah, you'll always lose some to the hard fact that hashtable is faster for 1 cpu
>than it is for 8.
Don't see why. quad 850 scaled perfectly. No reason a quad 875 can't do the
same. Hash probes are rare in Crafty...
>
>>Whether we will play well or not is anybody's guess. But I can guaran-damn-tee
>>you we will be playing _fast_. :)
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.