In my dream match there would be no handicaps of anykind.
I see a real need to have an event like this since the handicap matches have skewed people's opinions of human chances versus computers.
I've read comments such as "see, the human is still stronger than the machine" after Milov won with his huge head starts.
I'm afraid that the sun won't set on the era of human chess supremacy until such a match is played and the human gets beaten badly.
Of course the chances of such a match are slim to nil, but one can always hope.
P.S. I'd gladly pay to watch it. Maybe if enough tickets were sold the whole thing might become semi-feasible.
> Now here's the machine that should be used versus a super GM
No, no, no....... definitely NO ! Here is this computer:
(say " thank you !" please ) .
> should be used versus a super GM in a final death or glory,
I'm correct if I understand that the losing GM will be executed ? (lethal injection.........?).
> In my dream match there would be no handicaps of anykind.
I have the same nightmares !
> I see a real need to have an event like this
No, for me LHC/Geneve is the bigest event ! ( a furore normanorum libera nos ,Domine.........).But an uncalled for one !
> the human is still stronger than the machine
True ! See this post:
You can read here how the dog of Mr. DonaldLL chewed his machine !
> after Milov won
What ? A handicap match ? And only eight games ?
> I'm afraid that the sun won't set
True ! Possible to become even a supernova.
> I'd gladly pay to watch it.
Good ! What about to be the single beholder.For 5,000,000 $ of course !
> Maybe if enough tickets were sold
No ! North America is in recess.
All the best,
RockStar Cluster, 258 Intel Xeon CPUs, 256 GB RAM, 1.445 Teraflops
My brother-in North America - works with a such machine !
Poor Sivian :(:(:(:(:(...................................................... !
> Now here's the machine that should be used versus a super GM in a final death or glory, last chance for humanity, 8 game, 40/120 match.
In a no-handicap match a simple octal will do.
> there is now obviously no doubt in anyone's minds that Rybka is by far the strongest chess entity ever
Some of the Hiarcs fans would perhaps disagree
I would have preferred Rybka to play on a single Skulltrail 8-core. You know what will happen now - and you already see the comments - that this was a hardware victory not a Rybka victory. I don't agree with that, but 8-cores would have been enough
Connecting the cluster can easily be done by ethernet connections or fiber optic connections if cost is not a problem. You could actually create a UCI engine that could play from CB interface and have several different engines being loaded via Chessnet software. Chessnet allows you to name seperate UCI engines and allocate an IP address to each engine. At least this is how I was trying to setup a Rybka cluster some time back with Rybka 2.3.2a. Ofcourse Vas could be doing something completely different, but I like my method because it is quite easy to implement and there is no risk of worse play since the slaves are passive and the master system always has to "agree" to a trigger move. Also there is no risk of hash bugs or latency hits by trying to share memory across the platform and your system can grow by as many slaves as you want. The trickle down advantage of this is that this will scale automatically when hardware gets more and more cores. This is why I think Vas is doing a very wise decision by going the cluster route. It is not simply a geek experiment, there are many things that will be learned and implemented that will be put to good use in future Rybka versions.
By the way the cluster system mentioned is purely hypothetical and is how I would have gone about it. That does not mean that Vas has adopted that method. But I spent quite a long time on this about a year ago and am simply sharing what ideas I had.
> The Master plays as MV mode with 4 variations and feeds each of the slaves one of the variations. Immediately you will get a much broader and deeper search tree much much quicker.
My guess is this is very close to what really happened. Judging by the output on the engine screen Lucas provided recently.
1) The main reason for doing this was to understand the problem better. Multi-processor search is a huge topic these days. Had there been no WCCC, I would probably have waited until after the bugfix version & mobile ports, but it was good to do this earlier rather than later.
2) I do want to take advantage of search stochastics.
3) Slaves only talk to each other via the master. The network should have the property that dead slaves do as little to cripple other slaves as possible. Unfortunately, there are limits to this and the current cluster is after all a bit sensitive to dead slaves.
There is one Skulltrail 3.8 GHz
another Skulltrail 4.2 GHz
one 2x X5460 @ 3.4 GHz
one 2x X5365 3 GHz
one 2x E5430 @ 3 GHz
all computers have 8 GB of memory each (4x2 GB FB-DIMM 800 MHz - the X5365 has 4x2 GB FB-DIMM 667 MHz)
all computers were (of course) built by myself
each of them has a dual CPU socket 771 mainboard (2x Intel D5400XS, ASUS DSEB-DG, ASUS Z7S WS, Intel S500XVN)
all have fast harddisks for tablebases (mostly solid state disks)
operating system is Windows XP x64
they are connected by normal 1 Gbit/s ethernet using a normal 8-port Gbit switch by SMC
if there are any more questions - feel free to ask
> if there are any more questions - feel free to ask
Do you have a photo, you could post here? I would like to see this monster. :)
will you be using this system on playchess ?
I have already used it on Playchess. But atm testing and improoving the setup is more important.
How many speed nodes on starting position on this monster ?
Sainzlei @ Republic of Taiwan
(I checked FAQ and help, and am unable to figure out how to put a link to a post, not to mention putting my own text instead as Vytron does "#$% :-) )
>(I checked FAQ and help, and am unable to figure out how to put a link to a post, not to mention putting my own text instead as Vytron does "#$% :-)
This is how it's done (I added an invisible empty [b][/b] tag to make it a non-link):
> This is how it's done (I added an invisible empty [b][/b] tag to make it a non-link):
> [url=http://www.your.url.here]Link text[/url]
Yes, but how do you link to a particular post within a thread? Address doesn't change when you scroll down the screen, so if I just copy a link from the address bar and paste it, it would point to first post in the thread?
before it such as:
But kn/s do not mean much. It's real playing strength that matters.
Yes, I do. But you don't understand what I wrote.
Fact is: not every node calculated by every core is counted, but there is an algorithm to calculate them. The current algorithm of the cluster version is very coarse. The slaves' strength is not considered. Using my hardware I can make a setup where 8 weaker slaves are present. The node count goes up to ~3000 kn/s, but playing strength drops by roughly 60 Elo.
If we accept the claim that each doubling of the cores adds 50 elo...
I don't accept that claim. In fact the first doubling of cores adds roughly 50 Elo points (or even a bit more), all further doublings add less.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill