Thanks. I don't understand the choice to enable pondering. The server has 48 physical cores. Each engine will run 46 threads. So with pondering on, 92 threads will be running on only 48 physical cores. Seems like a bad idea to me.Nay Lin Tun wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 11:14 amHere is another leaked link.zullil wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:50 amIs accurate information regarding hardware, time control and engine settings available online? Couldn't find anything at the URL above.Nay Lin Tun wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 3:47 amIn September 3, 2018, chess.com will be hosting their computer chess championship for this year. There are a lot of background factors that favor Leela to be able to fight for No 1 vs the best AB engine , Stockfish. Of course, if you recently saw Leela performance in TCEC Division 3, this post will be a big joke( But in bonus games, she draw all 9 games vs Stockfish 8 and Ethereal).
Improvement factors/favoring factors for Leela,
1. 4x V 100 for Leela vs 48 cores ( GPU/CPU ratio will be 3.6 times in favor for Leela than TCEC, approximately + 90 elo)
2. Newer ID are already stronger than 520 (at least +50 elo)
3. Leela will have Tablebase support (possibly +20 elo)
As latest version of stockfish is only 100 elo stronger than stockfish 8, Leela will be in more favour if she can effectively use 4x V100 and Tablebases.
https://www.chess.com/computer-chess-championship
https://www.chess.com/news/view/announc ... ampionship
Chess.com 2018 computer chess championship
Moderators: hgm, Dann Corbit, Harvey Williamson
Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
Re: Chess.com 2018 computer chess championship
Re: Chess.com 2018 computer chess championship
It's called 'hyperthreading' Louis, an Intel technology...each physical core = 2 logical cores
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading
and it works great...anything you may have heard (for ex: no matter what, HT is 'bad' for chess engines) is a myth.
There's been plenty of tests and data presented here recently (by Kai? and others) showing it's beneficial.
As for our choice in the matter, it's unfortunate you don't agree. I'm sure there our thousands of weekend armchair tournament directors out there with a whole range of opinions on our choices, but I really don't intend to engage in a debate about them here. My intention was to simply provide information concerning the event.
Last edited by kranium on Sun Aug 19, 2018 2:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Chess.com 2018 computer chess championship
I'm quite familiar with hyperthreading. My concerns remain.kranium wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 2:18 pmIt's called 'hyperthreading' Louis, an Intel technology...each physical core = 2 logical cores
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading

Re: Chess.com 2018 computer chess championship
Viewership is optionalzullil wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 2:21 pmI'm quite familiar with hyperthreading. My concerns remain.kranium wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 2:18 pmIt's called 'hyperthreading' Louis, an Intel technology...each physical core = 2 logical cores
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading![]()

Re: Chess.com 2018 computer chess championship
Of course. I understand that pondering is needed to "allow viewers to dive into each engine's thinking, as all engines will display live principal variations (PVs)—a real-time peek into their thinking process and the lines they are considering."kranium wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 2:30 pmViewership is optionalzullil wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 2:21 pmI'm quite familiar with hyperthreading. My concerns remain.kranium wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 2:18 pmIt's called 'hyperthreading' Louis, an Intel technology...each physical core = 2 logical cores
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading![]()
![]()
I have no interest in seeing PVs, since only the first few moves have any real value. The ever-changing displays of leaf positions that will never occur are simply distracting to me.
Good luck with the tournament.
Re: Chess.com 2018 computer chess championship
Indeed.... Ponder is bad enough when threads < physical cores, but with using hyperthreads contention is guaranteed.I'm quite familiar with hyperthreading. My concerns remain.
The real danger is not in CPU though, but concurrent TB access.... unless each program gets its own SSD with its own copy of whatever TBs it is using... which I highly doubt....
The bizarre thing is I know there are many people who do this, and they can not be persuaded that there is anything wrong with it. But whatever, not my electricity or money....
Re: Chess.com 2018 computer chess championship
They should use only 5-men Syzygy, otherwise it's a serious issue with ponder on.jhellis3 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 4:11 pmIndeed.... Ponder is bad enough when threads < physical cores, but with using hyperthreads contention is guaranteed.I'm quite familiar with hyperthreading. My concerns remain.
The real danger is not in CPU though, but concurrent TB access.... unless each program gets its own SSD with its own copy of whatever TBs it is using... which I highly doubt....
The bizarre thing is I know there are many people who do this, and they can not be persuaded that there is anything wrong with it. But whatever, not my electricity or money....
Re: Chess.com 2018 computer chess championship
SSD: 2x Crucial MX300 (1TB) in RAID1jhellis3 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 4:11 pmIndeed.... Ponder is bad enough when threads < physical cores, but with using hyperthreads contention is guaranteed.I'm quite familiar with hyperthreading. My concerns remain.
The real danger is not in CPU though, but concurrent TB access.... unless each program gets its own SSD with its own copy of whatever TBs it is using... which I highly doubt....
The bizarre thing is I know there are many people who do this, and they can not be persuaded that there is anything wrong with it. But whatever, not my electricity or money....
https://www.chess.com/news/view/announc ... ampionship
Re: Chess.com 2018 computer chess championship
Hi Kai-Laskos wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:39 pmThey should use only 5-men Syzygy, otherwise it's a serious issue with ponder on.jhellis3 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 4:11 pmIndeed.... Ponder is bad enough when threads < physical cores, but with using hyperthreads contention is guaranteed.I'm quite familiar with hyperthreading. My concerns remain.
The real danger is not in CPU though, but concurrent TB access.... unless each program gets its own SSD with its own copy of whatever TBs it is using... which I highly doubt....
The bizarre thing is I know there are many people who do this, and they can not be persuaded that there is anything wrong with it. But whatever, not my electricity or money....
If you think TB access may be an issue, I'll seriously consider limiting to 5 man...
but I must say, we've been running this exact config (46 threads/ponder-on, and 6-man TBs) all summer with no issues.
Syzygy TBs can be accessed simultaneously by multiple engines.
Can you explain the issue further for me, and is there data to support it?
Last edited by kranium on Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Chess.com 2018 computer chess championship
If there are 2 SSD, access is not a problem, so should be fine. The RAM usage might still be a problem, although I see a huge 256GB total available. With 6-men I do have problems in matches of engines which are not re-started even at short TC, but I have only 16GB available. Anyway, check the RAM usage with ponder on, but 256GB seems very safe.kranium wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:52 pmHi Kai-Laskos wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:39 pmThey should use only 5-men Syzygy, otherwise it's a serious issue with ponder on.jhellis3 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 4:11 pmIndeed.... Ponder is bad enough when threads < physical cores, but with using hyperthreads contention is guaranteed.I'm quite familiar with hyperthreading. My concerns remain.
The real danger is not in CPU though, but concurrent TB access.... unless each program gets its own SSD with its own copy of whatever TBs it is using... which I highly doubt....
The bizarre thing is I know there are many people who do this, and they can not be persuaded that there is anything wrong with it. But whatever, not my electricity or money....
If you think TB access may be an issue, I'll seriously consider limiting to 5 man...
but I must say, we've been running this exact config (46 threads/ponder-on, and 6-man TBs) all summer with no issues.
Syzygy TBs can be accessed simultaneously by multiple engines.
Can you explain the issue further for me, and is there data to support it?