Hardware:
i7-4790 CPU @ 3.60GHz
GTX 1060
32 GB Ram
Software:
Windows 10 Pro
Shredder 13 GUI
Book:
Tournament Setting: FCP-Live-Book_V4.49
Engines:
Deep Shredder 13 x64 (4 Cores) (2048 Hash) (Permanent Brain On) (Complete Syzygybases)
LC0 ver 0.16.0 (Default Settings)
Games: https://www59.zippyshare.com/v/AnZHZHGL/file.html
LC0 ver 0.16.0 ID 10520 vs Deep Shredder 13 x64 40/4
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 6340
- Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:34 pm
- Location: Acworth, GA
LC0 ver 0.16.0 ID 10520 vs Deep Shredder 13 x64 40/4
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
-
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:56 pm
Re: LC0 ver 0.16.0 ID 10520 vs Deep Shredder 13 x64 40/4
GPU hardware is not enough for such a limited time.
-
- Posts: 546
- Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2013 12:36 am
Re: LC0 ver 0.16.0 ID 10520 vs Deep Shredder 13 x64 40/4
Well....(Permanent Brain On)
-
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:48 pm
- Location: Seville (SPAIN)
- Full name: Javier Ros
Re: LC0 ver 0.16.0 ID 10520 vs Deep Shredder 13 x64 40/4
The Permanent Brain in Shredder is lowering the performance of LC0 because LC0 uses at least one core of CPU.
It is easy to detect it with a CPU monitor. Depending on the CPU and GPU I have seen it uses until 60 % the CPU.
Fair conditions would involve turning Permanent Brain off.
On the other hand, I also think that an average of 15 or 30 seconds per movement helps a lot to improve the play of LC0.
Do you use CUDA libraries? They multiply by 6 the performance of LC0.
It is easy to detect it with a CPU monitor. Depending on the CPU and GPU I have seen it uses until 60 % the CPU.
Fair conditions would involve turning Permanent Brain off.
On the other hand, I also think that an average of 15 or 30 seconds per movement helps a lot to improve the play of LC0.
Do you use CUDA libraries? They multiply by 6 the performance of LC0.
-
- Posts: 6340
- Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:34 pm
- Location: Acworth, GA
Re: LC0 ver 0.16.0 ID 10520 vs Deep Shredder 13 x64 40/4
Not so sure this statement is true. I am currently re-running the same test with these modified LC0 settings and LC0 is currently leading this time.
Code: Select all
-t 4 --minibatch-size=512 --nncache=2000000
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
-
- Posts: 6340
- Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:34 pm
- Location: Acworth, GA
Re: LC0 ver 0.16.0 ID 10520 vs Deep Shredder 13 x64 40/4
While match is still on going, here are the current standings.AdminX wrote: ↑Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:39 pmNot so sure this statement is true. I am currently re-running the same test with these modified LC0 settings and LC0 is currently leading this time.
PS: Using CUDNNCode: Select all
-t 4 --minibatch-size=512 --nncache=2000000
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
-
- Posts: 6340
- Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:34 pm
- Location: Acworth, GA
Re: LC0 ver 0.16.0 ID 10520 vs Deep Shredder 13 x64 40/4
Here is the final score of the rematch using the modified settings.
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
-
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 8:02 pm
Re: LC0 ver 0.16.0 ID 10520 vs Deep Shredder 13 x64 40/4
With "Permanent brain" still active in Shredder the rerun is still irrelevant as pointed out earlier by Javier. Since you did not mention changing it I guess you decided to keep it enabled, or did you just forget it?
-
- Posts: 6340
- Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:34 pm
- Location: Acworth, GA
Re: LC0 ver 0.16.0 ID 10520 vs Deep Shredder 13 x64 40/4
Correct, I decided to keep it enabled.Ron Langeveld wrote: ↑Sat Aug 11, 2018 9:24 amWith "Permanent brain" still active in Shredder the rerun is still irrelevant as pointed out earlier by Javier. Since you did not mention changing it I guess you decided to keep it enabled, or did you just forget it?
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
-
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 8:02 pm
Re: LC0 ver 0.16.0 ID 10520 vs Deep Shredder 13 x64 40/4
What is your reasoning for keeping it enabled?
Common test protocol and practice is with PONDER OFF for good reason. I am sure a man with your experience knows this all too well.
In this case only Shredder is allowed to ponder during the opponents time.
Furthermore, while pondering Shredder will compete with Leela for CPU thread utilization.
To me this is like a boxing match where Leela had one arm tied to his back.
So what do you think the outcome of your test is telling us?
There are plenty of pointless tests to be found on the internet and I couldn't care less.
It's the fact that you actually decided not to address the obvious issue with your test that triggered me to post.
Common test protocol and practice is with PONDER OFF for good reason. I am sure a man with your experience knows this all too well.
In this case only Shredder is allowed to ponder during the opponents time.
Furthermore, while pondering Shredder will compete with Leela for CPU thread utilization.
To me this is like a boxing match where Leela had one arm tied to his back.
So what do you think the outcome of your test is telling us?
There are plenty of pointless tests to be found on the internet and I couldn't care less.
It's the fact that you actually decided not to address the obvious issue with your test that triggered me to post.