Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:04:24 12/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 1999 at 02:04:47, Lex Loep wrote: >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. > Yes.. but you gave examples of things running that are not going to hurt performance one iota. Because they don't need cpu time. If you run a cpu-bound process, run it at a _higher_ than normal priority. Or do just as you are now, knowing that the DNS/sendmail stuff is _not_ hurting the chess program even though it is running at a background priority. That was the point. If you think that DNS/sendmail is hurting the program's performance, you are mistaken. Whether it runs at normal priority or at a very low priority is totally unimportant, because those tasks require no cpu time at all. Now if you run compute-bound stuff yourself, then yes it hurts. This is how "scrappy" runs _all_ the time on FICS, and it is how Crafty runs all the time on ICC. If something else compute-bound comes in, that gets the CPU, displacing crafty almost completely. >> >> >>>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.