Author: Lex Loep
Date: 23:04:47 12/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 1999 at 21:02:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 12, 1999 at 17:43:57, Lex Loep wrote: > >>On December 12, 1999 at 15:43:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On December 12, 1999 at 15:27:19, Lex Loep wrote: >>> >>>>On December 12, 1999 at 10:10:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 12, 1999 at 09:33:38, blass uri wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On December 12, 1999 at 07:27:27, Lex Loep wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On December 12, 1999 at 06:00:43, blass uri wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On December 12, 1999 at 05:31:47, Lex Loep wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On December 12, 1999 at 03:23:18, blass uri wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On December 11, 1999 at 23:38:05, Chessfun wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>><<SNIP>> >>>>>>>>>>>I posted the previous score as being: >>>>>>>>>>>Record for shutka vs. chesspartner: >>>>>>>>>>> wins losses draws >>>>>>>>>>> rated 60 29 0 >>>>>>>>>>> unrated 0 0 0 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Current is now: >>>>>>>>>>>Record for shutka vs. chesspartner: >>>>>>>>>>> wins losses draws >>>>>>>>>>> rated 61 30 0 >>>>>>>>>>> unrated 0 0 0 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I am surprised to see this result mainly because of the fact that they are no >>>>>>>>>>draws. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Is it possible that shutka repeats the same game again and again when >>>>>>>>>>chesstiger cannot use learning because of the fact that it is out of book after >>>>>>>>>>one or two moves(taking advantage of the fact that tiger has no learning by >>>>>>>>>>position)? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I am interested to see the games because it seems impossible to do it in fast >>>>>>>>>>time control without this idea. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Here are the last two games, they have been played with the anti-human option >>>>>>>>>on. >>>>>>>>>First game was lost by tiger on time, tiger was clearly ahead. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I do not understand the reason that tiger is losing on time. >>>>>>>>It should never happen to computers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Without a increment the computer has a disadvantage, as human just make sure >>>>>>>you always have a few seconds extra time, eventually the computer runs out of >>>>>>>time, unless you get checkmated first. >>>>>> >>>>>>I disagree because I know that crafty never lose on time with games with no >>>>>>increasment. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are all kinds of delays before >>>>>>>engine gets a chance to calculates it's move. This may be as much as half a >>>>>>>second per move. >>>>>> >>>>>>I do not understand it. >>>>>>I thought that the delay is 0 seconds >>>>>> >>>>>>If there is a delay of .5 seconds for move before calculating then humans has >>>>>>unfair advanatge because they sometime play faster than 0.5 second per move. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>all of this is programming problems. The _only_ delay is between the engine >>>>>and the interface, assuming the interface is using timeseal. Timeseal repairs >>>>>the delay from interface to server and back. However, the engine and interface >>>>>are two programs that communicate via (typically) a pipe. Once the interface >>>>>gets the move from the server, the time starts. It is now up to the program >>>>>to read the input, act on it, and produce a move. Remember, "crafty" is 10 >>>>>years 'behind' the commercial programs, so I see no point in telling them how >>>>>to fix such problems. :) >>>>> >>>>>But they _can_ be fixed. Crafty can play a 60 move game in one second if you >>>>>want to see something _really_ fast.. :) >>>>> >>>>>Bob >>>>Except in this setup the engine runs at idle priority at a relatively slow pc, >>>>so al the GUI updates are handled before engine get a chance at it. Plus >>>>anything else that might be going on. The PC is used as mailserver/domain >>>>controller, internet gateway etc. I have not actually messured the 1/2 second >>>>delay but this is my estimate. But with 90 moves in 180 seconds it is >>>>significant. >>>>I have looked at some other games of shutka against tiger, it's al the same >>>>shutka plays very fast, tiger gets some won position around move 60 then looses >>>>on time. >>>>To me it looks meaningless, if I just give tiger engough CPU time the shutka >>>>guy is nowhere ! >>>> >>>>Lex >>> >>>Running a mail server, or a DNS server, requires essentially no computer >>>time. My xeon in my office is running both of these, and the typical CPU >>>utilization for either never exceeds 1% of one cpu. And this includes sending >>>out all the email to the crafty mailing list, and so forth. >>> >>>As far as shutka goes, why not run tiger at normal priority. It will _not_ >>>affect DNS lookups, nor mail transfers in or out. Those things use so little >>>cpu time that they will always have a higher priority than a chess engine that >>>is computing steadily... >>> >>>That is what the O/S is all about.. >>On average the CPU utilization is less then 1 % for these tasks like mail etc. >>But once they happen their importance exceeds the importance of this chessgame >>running some test, therefore the chessgame runs at idle priority, still getting >>most of the CPU, unless real work needs to be done. > >Sorry, but you aren't thinking about this correctly. DNS is _not_ compute- >bound. It is _massively_ I/O bound. Either looking up entries in a local >file, or else going to a next-level DNS server with network latency delays. >Doesn't matter how busy it gets (I run a network with over 200 machines and >the DNS server stuff burns a total of about 1 minute per month or so.) Same >thing for mail. IE unix sendmail, on a machine that has been up for 2.5 days >since we upgraded it, we have this: > > root 226 1 0 Dec 10 ? 0:07 /usr/lib/sendmail -m -bd -q15m > >A total of 7 seconds. On a machine serving all our faculty email, the machine >handles all the departmental mailing lists we have, etc. > >Neither of those will influence the chess engine in any way. I run the same >processes on my quad and you can bet that if I saw any degradation of any kind, >they would be terminated instantly. > >I/O bound processes simply don't hurt at all. > It's not only I/O processes, I am sure for just I/O you are right, but if I want to do some work on the PC, having a chessprogram running at normal priority it make the machine behave sluggish, remember it is not a fast machine and it has only one CPU. > > >>No matter what OS u use mail tranfers, DNS lookup still have to compete for CPU >>time, and for me they are more importand than this chess game. So I won't change >>priorities. > >That's up to you. Wrong however. As a process sits blocked on a socket waiting >for a DNS query, its priority goes up. As a process sits computing (the chess >engine) its priority goes down. When a DNS query comes in, it gets handled >_instantly_ because the process is no longer blocked and its priority is up. > >That is why _nobody_ fiddles with priorities on servers. The O/S can handle it >far better than you can... > > > > > >>I may run tiger on an other CPU some day, but so far results show me it beats >>90 % of it's opposition blind folded and hands tight on it's back :) > > >Stop playing all those 1700-1800's and move up to the big boys.. :) Try (on >ICC) vic11, cptnbluebear, bani, dlugy, any of the others at the top of the >rating list. THose make more interesting games... I would love to, but I don't have an ICC account. Lex
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.