Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:04:57 08/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 23, 2005 at 22:47:07, A. Cozzie wrote: >Bob let me run on his 8-way from AMD for an hour or so tonight, so I thought I'd >post the results. I think he is going to run Crafty on these positions as well. > This is only 3 positions so it doesn't represent anything statistically >significant, but it gives me a general idea of how I'm doing. > >Nolot 1: > >1. Ng4xh6 c4-c3 2. Nh6-f5 c3xb2 3. Qd1-g4 Bb7-c8 4. Nf5xg7 Re6-g6 5. Qg4xg6 >Qe8xg6 6. Rg3xg6 Bf8xg7 7. Ne4xd6 Bc8-d7 > = (-0.13) Depth: 14/40 00:03:27.46 889946kN (4290 KN/s, 28617 >splits, 1805 aborts) >1. Ng4xh6 c4-c3 2. Nh6-f5 c3xb2 3. Qd1-g4 Bb7-c8 4. Nf5xg7 Re6-g6 5. Qg4xg6 >Qe8xg6 6. Rg3xg6 Bf8xg7 7. Ne4xd6 Bc8-d7 > = (-0.13) Depth: 14/38 00:24:01.14 797115kN (553 KN/s, 0 splits, 0 >aborts) My data:------------------------------------------- log.001: time=11:12 mat=-1 n=1288218287 fh=92% nps=1.92M log.002 time=2:05 mat=-1 n=1814283125 fh=91% nps=14.51M I get 7.56 NPS scaling, SMP speedup is 5.4X > >Larsen-Spassky: > >1... h5-h4 2. Be2xg4 Bf5xg4 3. h3xg4 h4xg3 4. Rh1-g1 Rh8-h2 5. Qc2-c3 Qe7-h4 6. >Ke1-d1 Rh2-h1 7. Rg1xh1 Qh4xh1 8. Kd1-c2 g3-g2 9. Nb1-a3 > = (2.57) Depth: 15/40 00:02:00.34 604796kN (5026 KN/s, 25748 >splits, 1329 aborts) >1... h5-h4 2. Be2xg4 Bf5xg4 3. h3xg4 h4xg3 4. Rh1-g1 Rh8-h2 5. Qc2-c3 Qe7-h4 6. >Ke1-d1 Rh2-h1 7. Rg1xh1 Qh4xh1 8. Kd1-c2 g3-g2 9. Nb1-a3 > = (2.57) Depth: 15/42 00:12:46.15 500809kN (654 KN/s, 0 splits, 0 >aborts) > >Nolot 10 > >1. Rf1xf7 Rf8xf7 2. Bd5xf7 Kg8xf7 3. Qd1-h5 Kf7-g8 4. Qh5-e8 Be7-f8 5. Nc3-d5 >Qb6xd4 6. Nd5-e7 Kg8-h8 7. Ra1-f1 Qd4-f6 8. Rf1xf6 g7xf6 9. Ne7xc8 > = (1.58) Depth: 14/42 00:02:20.42 715711kN (5097 KN/s, 26886 >splits, 1288 aborts) >1. Rf1xf7 Rf8xf7 2. Bd5xf7 Kg8xf7 3. Qd1-h5 Kf7-g8 4. Qh5-e8 Be7-f8 5. Nc3-d5 >Qb6xd4 6. Nd5-e7 Kg8-h8 7. Ra1-f1 Qd4-f6 8. Rf1xf6 g7xf6 9. Ne7xc8 > = (1.58) Depth: 14/39 00:09:09.82 373351kN (679 KN/s, 0 splits, 0 >aborts) > >Scaling: 7.75, 7.68, 7.51, for an average of ~7.6 >Speedup: 6.94, 6.37, 3.91, fo an average of 5 or so. > >The first two are more or less standard positions and Zappa gets a speedup of >6.5 The last is more or less the worst case as Zappa switches among mainlines >constantly and evidentially some real wasted work was done :( > >Of course in a game things work a bit better as you ahve filled hash tables, but >I'm still sort of disappointed. The biggest problem I have is that the worst >case is also the most important case: when you don't know what move to play :) > >anthony I will run the other two tomorrow. The last one is a bad (good) case for me. At depth 13, the one processor test finds Rxf7 is just a tad better than Bb3, but then Rf7 fails low at depth=14 and the search takes a long time to work its way back to Bb3. The parallel search doesn't fall for Rf7 at depth 13 due to some sort of parallel search / hashing interaction. As a result, my speedup on this position is way over 8.0, which is an anomaly, called a "super-linear speedup". Something that happens here and there but not regularly...
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.