Clarification of the 8-cores rule for the WCCC

[Yar]

Hello,

Clarification by David Levy is here:
http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/n ... .php?id=40

With best regards,
Yar

[bob]

Hello,

Clarification by David Levy is here:
http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/n ... .php?id=40

With best regards,
Yar

Ah, yes. That _completely_ clears things up.

Err... what in the hell is a "logical core"??? What if I were to use 16 illogical cores???

stupid rule, stupid decision... Reminds me of Forrest Gump, "stupid is as stupid does..."

[frankp]

Of all possible real integers, why is eight the magic number?

[bob]

Of all possible real integers, why is eight the magic number?

The _only_ possible answer is this:

"just because..." Which is a reason a 4-year old would give

Of course, 8-core boxes are very common. So now we make the WCCC a "very common" computer chess tournament???

Sounds like a quick path to irrelevance, IMHO.

I still think it is irresponsible to hold a WCCC event where people will legitimately be able to claim "my machine playing on Playchess or ICC would beat any of those things that used such limited hardware..."

[diep]

Hello,

Clarification by David Levy is here:
http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/n ... .php?id=40

With best regards,
Yar

Ah, yes. That _completely_ clears things up.

Err... what in the hell is a "logical core"??? What if I were to use 16 illogical cores???

stupid rule, stupid decision... Reminds me of Forrest Gump, "stupid is as stupid does..."

A logical core is something intel only.
Other processors do not have this technology,
these technologies of other processors obviously are not forbidden.
like the SMT in Niagara (i wonder anyway who would want to run on a processor that can do like 1 instruction a cycle).

There is a huge difference between intel and other manufacturers here. Intel CLAIMS they have 2 times the number of cores than it has when i count. I'd argue if they claim it is a logical core then it is a core.

In case of Sun,IBM,Alpha (21464 never released though) and some embedded processors they have SMT to allow more threads, yet they do not claim that is additional cores, so it is not extra cores, so that hardware is allowed if you don't use more than 8 cores. As simple as that.

If you do a claim (intel in this case) it gets awarded of course, even though HT in intel doesn't help much for computerchess anyway for speedup as we know, and all participants will turn it off anyway.

It is a definition question, not something practical

[Dann Corbit]

Of all possible real integers, why is eight the magic number?

The _only_ possible answer is this:

"just because..." Which is a reason a 4-year old would give

Of course, 8-core boxes are very common. So now we make the WCCC a "very common" computer chess tournament???

Sounds like a quick path to irrelevance, IMHO.

I still think it is irresponsible to hold a WCCC event where people will legitimately be able to claim "my machine playing on Playchess or ICC would beat any of those things that used such limited hardware..."

Someone should bring an 8 core box that is liquid nitrogen cooled and pushed to 13 GHz.

When all is said and one, Rybka will be the winner anyway.

Maybe they should make everyone run their chess programs on some exact model Nokia cell phone:
http://www.cooltechzone.com/Departments ... 603202243/

COFFE BROWN ONLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Suji]

"What if I were to use 16 illogical cores???"



Now that you mention it, they will probably ban the "illogical" cores...

I personally think that Dr. Hyatt is right on the whole thing. It's not just about the software, it's about optimizing the hardware and software together.

[frankp]

Someone should bring an 8 core box that is liquid nitrogen cooled and pushed to 13 GHz.

When all is said and one, Rybka will be the winner anyway.

Maybe they should make everyone run their chess programs on some exact model Nokia cell phone:
http://www.cooltechzone.com/Departments ... 603202243/

COFFE BROWN ONLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think someone got an AMD Phemon II up to about 6GHz recently using this technique. The pictures showed the surroundings were a little opaque - due to the liquid N2 'smoke'. Apt maybe.

[Yar]

Someone should bring an 8 core box that is liquid nitrogen cooled and pushed to 13 GHz.

When all is said and one, Rybka will be the winner anyway.

Maybe they should make everyone run their chess programs on some exact model Nokia cell phone:
http://www.cooltechzone.com/Departments ... 603202243/

COFFE BROWN ONLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think someone got an AMD Phemon II up to about 6GHz recently using this technique. The pictures showed the surroundings were a little opaque - due to the liquid N2 'smoke'. Apt maybe.

Core i7 975 was overclocked to 5,26Ghz and its much faster than Phenom II 940@6,3Ghz

[bob]

Hello,

Clarification by David Levy is here:
http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/n ... .php?id=40

With best regards,
Yar

Ah, yes. That _completely_ clears things up.

Err... what in the hell is a "logical core"??? What if I were to use 16 illogical cores???

stupid rule, stupid decision... Reminds me of Forrest Gump, "stupid is as stupid does..."

A logical core is something intel only.
Other processors do not have this technology,
these technologies of other processors obviously are not forbidden.
like the SMT in Niagara (i wonder anyway who would want to run on a processor that can do like 1 instruction a cycle).

There is a huge difference between intel and other manufacturers here. Intel CLAIMS they have 2 times the number of cores than it has when i count. I'd argue if they claim it is a logical core then it is a core.

In case of Sun,IBM,Alpha (21464 never released though) and some embedded processors they have SMT to allow more threads, yet they do not claim that is additional cores, so it is not extra cores, so that hardware is allowed if you don't use more than 8 cores. As simple as that.

If you do a claim (intel in this case) it gets awarded of course, even though HT in intel doesn't help much for computerchess anyway for speedup as we know, and all participants will turn it off anyway.

It is a definition question, not something practical

My point was that the "wording" is stupid. A 4-core processor with hyper-threading is technically 8 "logical processors". If I were using one, it would have hyper-threading disabled and would be running with 4 physical cores. Could I run on a dual-I7 which has 8 real cores or potentially 16 logical cores?

Even a little bit of thought would have shown that this rule and discussion is so far beyond ridiculous, it takes sunlight 6 months to get from ridiculous to the discussion taking place.

And the sad thing is, David doesn't seem to "get this..."