kranium wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:43 pm
The CPU engines will be the only engine running on the system, and will have full access to the processors (w/ 46 threads addressing 48 physical CPUs) while playing vs. Lc0
The machine in question supports 96 logical cores, while the CPU engines are being limited to 46 in all games. We all understand it's standard practice to reserve one physical core for the OS, so full access for the CPU engines would entail 94 logical cores. 46 is less than 94, therefore the CPU engines will not have full access to the processors.
kranium wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:43 pm
I recently ran Ethereal in this manner and the NPS was impressive, so it's clear that that the CPU engines will be running at full or near full strength, and should perform well in games against Lc0.
What was Ethereal's average NPS in your tests? One thing I appreciate about Andrew Grant is that when he tests, he puts numbers to paper rather than making vague claims like "should perform well". Are you outperforming Andrew Grant's $720 processor? Are you outperforming TCEC or the now defunct YLCET? One would expect some pretty gaudy NPS numbers from the CPU engines if the claim that the CCCC will "generate the best possible chess" is to be taken seriously. From what I can tell, most reasonable and knowledgeable people believe that claim to be laughable.
(And of course we all understand any given entity will, in practice, be limited by resources. "Best possible chess" is simply shorthand. But does Chess.com appear to have made a reasonable effort to ensure all engines will "generate the best possible chess" within the context of the apparent limit of the resources allocated to the project? I know of no reasonably independent party that believes that to be the case.)
kranium wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:43 pm
I can assure you there's no 'agenda'. We are simply trying to provide a fun and entertaining event that includes high-level and competitive chess. All of which I can guarantee. We are of course very interested in the Lc0 project, and are fascinated by it's unusual yet strong style of play (as are many), and have tried to provide it with a suitable platform in an effort to help it play to it's full and current potential. If funding allowed we would have gone with 8x Tesla v100s.
Assurances or no, providing one and only one engine "with a suitable platform in an effort to help it play to its full and current potential" reasonably appears to many to plainly be your agenda.
(And lest you assume I'm not a fan of Leela, I'm actually a huge fan of the project. That's why I want Leela to achieve dominance in an environment that reasonably approximates fairness, without much room for griping and grumbling, and not because of a 60:1 effective hardware cost advantage.)
kranium wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:43 pm
We're not overly concerned if the CPU vs GPU hardware platforms equate perfectly or not. This is not an official (software) world championship event.
Of course it's impossible to ensure that both hardware platforms equate perfectly, as no one can agree what that even means. I'm reminded of Justice Potter Stewart's most famous quote:
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.
From what I can tell, most reasonable people deem the GPU hardware to be downright pornographic in comparison to the CPU hardware. It's impossible to draw a line in the sand saying exactly what would be reasonable, or fair, or interesting, or whatever any claimed goal would be. But people know sheer ridiculousness when they see it. $40,000 of graphics cards versus Ethereal pulling less NPS than on Andrew Grant's $720 CPU is simply ridiculous.
kranium wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:43 pm
We've specifically chosen ponder 'on' for this 1st inaugural event for 1 reason only...the chess.com team feels very strongly about letting viewers see both engine's thinking simultaneously, in an effort to highlight the new web UI capabilities (which we've written from the ground up with the newest modern web technologies). This includes a groundbreaking "live PVs" web broadcast feature.
While watching some of your testing I found the constantly shifting PVs to be exceedingly distracting. Of course, someone, somewhere, may derive some value from watching two PV windows flash wildly many times a second, but I personally detest it, not to put too fine a point on it. May I request that you allow viewers to disable this feature if they desire?
(It's also disappointing to me because most reasonable and knowledgeable people seem to agree that ponder will result in lower quality chess, at least in games between top CPU engines. It seems a shame to produce lower quality chess merely for the sake of two simultaneously updating live PV displays that many people couldn't care less about, or actively dislike. Furthermore, it's simply bizarre and without precedent in computer chess that the Houdini facing Leela won't be the same as the Houdini facing Komodo.)
kranium wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:43 pm
I do hope you can enjoy it instead of picking it apart, leveling accusations, and being so critical of the effort. I certainly realize there's a lot of 'haters', and egotistical people who believe they could do much better, but please don't forget: these events are being produced, funded, and broadcast for free by chess.com for the benefit of community...as the amount of new subscribers necessary to pay for it all is astronomical.
I do hope that rather than classifying any and all criticism as merely the "egotistical" ramblings of "haters", you make a real effort to address the substantive issues being raised calmly and politely by a large community of reasonable and knowledgeable viewers.