[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [computer-go] Hardware-Instruction.
Uh-oh.
Would you guys mind taking this someplace else?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Vincent
> Diepeveen
> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 22:20
> To: drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; computer-go; computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] Hardware-Instruction.
>
>
> "Despite your belief, our speedups for going to multiple processors were
> impressive."
>
> Please show some logfiles of cilkchess which it had in tournament games,
> including especially nodes a second and number of processors and at which
> processor you ran it at. In fact i remember the hardware very
> well you used
> the tournaments you were there.
>
> Don't tell the same bullshit like hyatt that the logfiles are away. At
> supercomputer *nothing ever* gets away. Things are 10 times backed up if
> not more.
>
> The diep logfiles, despite that i just ran once at it in a single
> tournament, and cilkchess tens of times, will be even there when i'm dead
> and buried in a year or 60.
>
> The inefficiency of cilk is very well known of course. No need to defend a
> hopeless cause.
>
> By the way, in 1996 diep was barely 2 years old and i joined at 3 times
> slower hardware first weekend than any of the other PC-participants (all
> single cpu).
>
> The operator of cilkchess first year was Aske Plaat. He didn't know how to
> setup a chess position in cilkchess when Cilkchess had crashed. Aske Plaat
> was given each game something like 15 minutes extra to compensate for
> remote operation.
>
> You were allowed to crash 3 times in those days before a game was
> resigned.
>
> The nonsense about cilkchess is that you guys did speedclaims: "cilk is
> doing real great".
>
> Never any hard data. NEVER. Not a logfile. NOTHING.
>
> I just saw it was 40 times slower than it could be.
>
> The program was a simple bitboards program. "Even simpler than crafty" to
> quote your own words in 1999.
>
> In short you could on paper get the same nps like crafty times 512 at the
> same hardware (1999 world champs).
>
> Did you get that?
>
> Remember i played you a few times. I know exactly how many nps a
> cpu you got.
>
> Dare you say it publicly?
>
> Vincent
>
> At 18:29 5-11-2004 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
> >
> >> Cilkchess doesn't show any speedup but clearly first slowed down their
> >> program 40 times with 'cilk' from MiT, in order to show a
> better speedup.
> >
> >This shows that you have no clue about what you are talking about.
> >
> >In 1996 we won the Dutch championship with a score of 10 out of 11
> >beating 9 programs including YOUR program and drawing only two. Not a
> >single loss. Not bad for a program that was "slowed down 40X" in
> >order to make the numbers look good.
> >
> >The following year we came in a very strong second, two points ahead
> >of every one behind us and only 1/2 point behind the winner (Nimzo,
> >Chrilly's program.) Not bad for a program that was "slowed down 40X"
> >in order to make the numbers look good.
> >
> >Cilk is a superset of C, and in fact is just a frontend to C. I
> >literally wrote a serial chess program in C, and added a few lines of
> >"cilk" code to make it parallel. When the program is run as a 1
> >processor "parallel" program, it slows down less than 5 percent over
> >the purely serial program. Cilk is a fantastic language for high
> >performance parallel programming. Despite your belief, our speedups
> >for going to multiple processors were impressive.
>
> >
> >I won the 1996 tournament and came in second in the 1997 tournament
> >because we had an excellent parallel implementation of a good but not
> >great program. My program had a lot of evaluation problems and quite
> >a few other bugs but none related to the parallelism, thanks to Cilk.
> >Both programs were developed in just weeks (yes, the 1997 program was
> >rewritten from scratch because I felt the winning 1996 program needed
> >too much revamping to be what it should be.) Not like Diep which had
> >evolved over many years but won less than half it's games in those 2
> >tournaments.
> >
> >I think we did pretty good for a program that "showed no speedup" due
> >to parallelism and I also think you don't know what you are talking
> >about.
> >
> >> How much more nonsense will we keep seeing in the search world?
> >
> >It's ironic that you ask this question.
> >
> >
> >- Don
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >computer-go mailing list
> >computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/