Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
The trick is to reduce the speed (or the time) use by the engine.
I did. But we are not talking apples to apples. You are talking 5K nodes per second, which I agreed MIGHT produce a 2700 Elo. I was talking about the 100 nps claim, giving a total search space of 18K for the entire search tree, and giving the GM 180 seconds. I do NOT believe the program searching 18K nodes total per move will have any significant chance to win even a single game.Laskos wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:37 pmbob wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:21 pm How far it is above Crafty really doesn't affect my comments. 2K nodes per second is not going to beat a GM. Might not beat a master, since most of the speculative pruning stuff really needs exceptional search depth to bypass the holes it causes.
1 second per move vs 180 seconds per move? Maybe. But certainly not 360K nodes total vs 180 seconds for a GM.
As far as the other numbers you quoted, I don't think any of 'em are even close to reality. Stockfish at 1K nodes per second is going to get roasted by DB. Completely roasted. That is only a factor of 100,000 in terms of nodes per second. Would be pretty easy to test. Take the online Cray Blitz source, and let it run for 180 * 200M nodes total and limit stockfish to 360K total. Cray Blitz was fairly similar to DB and others of that time frame, primarily using recursive null-move but nothing else regarding forward pruning, except maybe in the last few plies before q-search. Would be an interesting thing to try, but it would certainly take forever for a single game. I'm pretty sure nobody would want to scale that down to 2M nodes per second vs 10 nodes per second to keep the time ratio the same. I can certainly predict how badly that will end.
I would be willing to play stockfish at 100 nodes per second myself, and I have not actively played chess in 30 years (for tournaments anyway).
18000 nodes total is NOT going to play like a GM, in any shape for form.
With SF_dev at 5 kn/s I have no doubts SF_dev is no less than 2700 FIDE Elo level at tournament time control. Bob, software has advanced much. In some maybe 600-700 computer Elo-ish points since 1990s. Meaning some 400 FIDE Elo-ish points against humans.
There are many ways to reach this conclusion. One of the many is that Rebel 9 in 1997 was already some 2600 FIDE Elo level TPR on P200 in a good number of games against humans, having some 60 kn/s IIRC.
Do the math.
You were talking also about the option of 2K nodes per secondbob wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 4:31 amI did. But we are not talking apples to apples. You are talking 5K nodes per second, which I agreed MIGHT produce a 2700 Elo. I was talking about the 100 nps claim, giving a total search space of 18K for the entire search tree, and giving the GM 180 seconds. I do NOT believe the program searching 18K nodes total per move will have any significant chance to win even a single game.Laskos wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:37 pmbob wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:21 pm How far it is above Crafty really doesn't affect my comments. 2K nodes per second is not going to beat a GM. Might not beat a master, since most of the speculative pruning stuff really needs exceptional search depth to bypass the holes it causes.
1 second per move vs 180 seconds per move? Maybe. But certainly not 360K nodes total vs 180 seconds for a GM.
As far as the other numbers you quoted, I don't think any of 'em are even close to reality. Stockfish at 1K nodes per second is going to get roasted by DB. Completely roasted. That is only a factor of 100,000 in terms of nodes per second. Would be pretty easy to test. Take the online Cray Blitz source, and let it run for 180 * 200M nodes total and limit stockfish to 360K total. Cray Blitz was fairly similar to DB and others of that time frame, primarily using recursive null-move but nothing else regarding forward pruning, except maybe in the last few plies before q-search. Would be an interesting thing to try, but it would certainly take forever for a single game. I'm pretty sure nobody would want to scale that down to 2M nodes per second vs 10 nodes per second to keep the time ratio the same. I can certainly predict how badly that will end.
I would be willing to play stockfish at 100 nodes per second myself, and I have not actively played chess in 30 years (for tournaments anyway).
18000 nodes total is NOT going to play like a GM, in any shape for form.
With SF_dev at 5 kn/s I have no doubts SF_dev is no less than 2700 FIDE Elo level at tournament time control. Bob, software has advanced much. In some maybe 600-700 computer Elo-ish points since 1990s. Meaning some 400 FIDE Elo-ish points against humans.
There are many ways to reach this conclusion. One of the many is that Rebel 9 in 1997 was already some 2600 FIDE Elo level TPR on P200 in a good number of games against humans, having some 60 kn/s IIRC.
Do the math.
It would help if we had a little more information. Like:yorkman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2020 3:32 am Thanks, but what version is that exactly? Just stockfish 9? So no dev version? Can one still actually download SF9?
Here's what I just got in CentOS 8.1 with SMT/HT enabled and 8 dimms populated with 2166MHz ram (8 GB each):
Total time (ms) : 299493
Nodes searched : 19609843392
Nodes/second : 65476800
That's pathetic! Seems like I was getting better performance the less dimms I put in.
This is the authoritative page for chess benchmarks on high end systemsyorkman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2020 4:37 am Here are my results with SF9, the same as in the benchmark from this thread:
./stockfish-9-popcnt bench 1024 256 26
Total time (ms) : 519221
Nodes searched : 45414888487
Nodes/second : 87467356
Look at the Total time! Took forever to finish this benchmark in latest CentOS 8.1. Temps were fine in Windows and speed, also in Windows, was also good at 3.20 GHz. Win'10 Ent reported 4 logical processors with HT enabled. I have two physical processors @ 64 cores each. I'm now using Linux but will probably go back to Win'10 Ent. since I now know the problem persists in Linux too. Strangely, I did get 160,000 kN/s to 170,000 kN/s a few times in Linux but for some reason not anymore. It may be because I went from 4 to 8 dimms (8x8=64GB).
@zenmastur: That's the only ram I have at the moment. I wanted to buy 16 * 3200MHz but it's very hard to get that right now with the covid19 virus. And the prices are ridiculous too, especially since the cad$ dropped a lot so for the time being I have to wait and test with what I have.
I have tried the very latest dev version of SF which I believe is NUMA aware, at least with processor groups but I don't know if can support 4 numa nodes.
So you're saying it's most likely the 2166MHz ram that's killing all the speed on this system? I'm starting to think the same as there's not much else for me left to try.
