Author: Daniel Mehrmannn
Date: 02:27:29 08/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 2005 at 03:33:37, Joachim Rang wrote: >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) >> >>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 [...] > >Thanks for sharing this. I think it is not too bad. On some positions you always >will have a bad speedup. But your data shows that generally your parallel search >works okay with 8 procs. [...] Not bad ?? This is extremly good and the best scaling i've ever seen so far. Looks like anthony did a perfect job. Best, Daniel
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.