Supposedly, it had 88 processors (2.4 Ghz Opterons) for the WCCC. But as Jeroen noted, it (now) also appears to have a very good book. [It was out of book at move 9 in a Be2 Najdorf against Rybka at the WCCC].
Whatever it is, it played rather well with White against Rybka...
Toga is clearly weaker than rybka on one processor and I believe that the same is for cluster toga.
I did not see here report about the game of cluster toga against rybka.
Where do you see report about the result of this game?
http://www.chessok.com/broadcast/live.html leads to empty board so I cannot see there games of rybka in the tournament
I see that it won against rybka
I do not know if it was bad opening by rybka or if rybka blundered.
Nebula,Rybka 2.2 mp (2718) - Flyingfatman,Rybka 2.2 mp (2620) [B90]
16m + 0s, rated, 20.11.2006
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.f3 Be7 9.Qd2 0-0 10.0-0-0 Nbd7 11.g4 Qc7 12.Kb1 b5 13.g5 Nh5 14.Nd5 Bxd5 15.exd5 Nb6 16.Na5 Nxd5 17.Qxd5 Qxa5 18.Bd3 Qd8 19.h4 Qd7 20.Rhe1 g6 21.Be4 Rad8 22.a3 Kg7 23.Qd2 f6 24.Rg1 Qc7 25.Bd5 Rc8 26.Rg4 f5 27.Rg2 Rfe8 28.Qd3 Bd8 29.Qb3 Qd7 30.Qb4 a5 31.Qd2 Qc7 32.Re2 Qb8 33.Qd3 Re7 34.Bd2 b4 35.axb4 axb4 36.Bb3 Ba5 37.Qd5 Rc5 38.Qd3 Bc7 39.Ba2 d5 40.Be3 Ra5 41.Bxd5 Bb6 42.Bxb6 Qxb6 43.Bb3 Qa7 44.c3 bxc3 45.Kc2 cxb2 46.Qd8 b1Q+ 47.Kxb1 Ra1+ 48.Kb2 Qa3+ 49.Kc2 Ra2+ 50.Bxa2 Qxa2+ 51.Kc1 Qa1+ 52.Kc2 Qa2+ 53.Kc1 Qa1+ 54.Kc2 Qa2+ ½-½
One of the Toga beta versions should allow multi-processing, and Glaurung (not much worse than Toga) does already. I would guess this would be (at least slightly) more efficient than a UCI-based approach (as was claimed about Gridchess, and I'd assume with Cluster Toga also), though if the cluster does not have the desired shared memory model, it might require nontrivial hackery to try to minimise processor wastage.
> I would guess this would be (at least slightly) more efficient than a UCI-based approach (as was claimed about Gridchess, and I'd assume with Cluster Toga also)
I still haven't seen anything newer than 2005 to back that up.
- He could not play using Rybka unless Vas withdrew and gave him permission (ha ha fat chance).
- He could use Zappa if Anthony would give him permission. This would probably lead to better results but it seems that Anthony does not want to have Zappa play in these types of competitions at this point (maybe he is hoping for a match with some kind of prize as a follow up to Mexico?).
If you remove all the engines that wouldn't give permission or were planning on attending the event themselves, Toga isn't such a bad choice.
Crafty wasn't used as an engine. It was used as the controller for the Toga engines. This required access to the source code. As far as the engine was concerned, any engine with a properly implemented UCI interface should have been ok (but many UCI engines are somewhat deficient in following the spec).
One word: PERMISSION.
I know of no evidence one way or the other - perhaps Kai's Doktorarbeit will elucidate the matter. The typical buzz about Gridchess was that it largely just used out-of-the-box Toga, with some elements of Crafty (for control near the root?), the latter causing questions about its ability to enter the WCCC. The main algorithmic idea appears to be something dubbed "optimistic pondering". There was a thread about it, including a link to a research blurb. The line (quoted in bold by Alan):
> A special advantage of this concept is the possibility to use existing concrete chess programs (so called chess engines) as "workers" (e.g. CRAFTY, DEEP SHREDDER) without the necessity of any engine modification.
seems to imply that the "so called chess engines" are used without much (if any) modification. The "serious programming" appears to be at the meta-level, rather than at the level of engines. It should be noted that many are of the opinion that this is a desired feature, as it will allow other programmes to benefit in such a plug-and-play manner with minimal hassle.
This is clearly not optimal, but it does allow for easy scaling to a very large number of cores, while current engines seem to hit a wall at 4, 8, or maybe 16 cores.
Indeed, I would expect a Doktorarbeit to discuss this in more detail. I don't know if informatics (European word for computer science) tries to put itself in the Faculty of Science, or is generally content with an Engineering label, but in the former case, the tournament results of the cluster would not be of such import. Indeed, from the science viewpoint, there should be some "scientific method" followed, and one would expect to find (say): how much gain [in some metric] optimisitic pondering achieves with N processors for N=8,16,32,64, and perhaps compare this to the gain that is achieved from more engine-specific methods. But then, I'm not on Kai's doctoral committee. :)
We can only hope and pray that this, " Lady Ragnell " will find her, "Sir Gawain " or, we are doomed to turbulence of the Hag!
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill