What happend to TCEC?

[JJJ]

Where do the numbers come from and how old is Jonny 8.00?
I see no reference and no details for your numbers.

It is obviously that some people here are completely clueless as to what they are talking about, and just fabricate the wildest stuff to provide 'evidence' for their pre-conceptions. As Uri already remarked, the Johnny playing at WCCC need not be Johnny 8.00, and in fact is quite unlikely to be that. So any argument based on the rating of Johnny 8.00 is null and void. Any argument based on scaling of SMP is void, as Johnny doesn't use the cores in the way they assume.

They know nothing, and blabber just nonsense.

Fact is that they never played Johnny-WCCC on 2048 cores against Stockfish. Fact is that Johnny did play 60-core Komodo on WCCC, and that the latter scored only one win and 7 draws against it.

And all this is off-topic as far as TCEC is concerned. Hardware in TCEC-like events is limited, and 2048-core clusters to conduct them a completely unrealistic goal at the current stage of technology.

And the only win was at shorter time control.

[Henk]

And then there's Milos too...

And how old is SF8? Sorry I mean Milos.

[Milos]

It is obviously that some people here are completely clueless as to what they are talking about, and just fabricate the wildest stuff to provide 'evidence' for their pre-conceptions. As Uri already remarked, the Johnny playing at WCCC need not be Johnny 8.00, and in fact is quite unlikely to be that. So any argument based on the rating of Johnny 8.00 is null and void. Any argument based on scaling of SMP is void, as Johnny doesn't use the cores in the way they assume.

They know nothing, and blabber just nonsense.

The only obvious thing is that you are clueless about parallel chess programming and parallel programming in general. As usual you come with your pompous approach of "I am a smart physicist, I know everything" and you come up with something stupid (like the bold statement) that immediately shows you are actually clueless about the topic. It happened with history, economy, politics on CTF, it is now happening with parallel programming here, the same story all over again. You offer no substance, not a single useful fact (all the facts you state are straw man) just one liner wishful thinking and speculation. And then you go around and insult ppl far more knowledgeable in programming and CS in general than you. Bravo, chapeau monsieur!

[Milos]

And then there's Milos too...

And how old is SF8? Sorry I mean Milos.

Jonny 8 is exactly 1 year old, SF8 is 8 months old. And a quite stupid straw man by some is that since SF is public and Jonny is private, Jonny somehow miraculously gained much more than SF in roughly the same time period.

[Milos]

If it were 300 Elo stronger, in addition to having a time-odds advantage of a factor 10, it should have crushed Komodo 7-3 or so. But that did not happen.

I missed this pearl.
Haha and again haha. You are hilarious man, hilarious. You should become a stand-up comedian.

[hgm]

The only obvious thing is that you are clueless about parallel chess programming and parallel programming in general. As usual you come with your pompous approach of "I am a smart physicist, I know everything" and you come up with something stupid (like the bold statement) that immediately shows you are actually clueless about the topic. It happened with history, economy, politics on CTF, it is now happening with parallel programming here, the same story all over again. You offer no substance, not a single useful fact (all the facts you state are straw man) just one liner wishful thinking and speculation. And then you go around and insult ppl far more knowledgeable in programming and CS in general than you. Bravo, chapeau monsieur!

More bullshit. Johannes explained me in some detail how Johnny uses so many cores to his advantage. I didn't see you there. How long have you talked to Johannes, to be such an expert on his program?

I missed this pearl.
Haha and again haha. You are hilarious man, hilarious. You should become a stand-up comedian.

And of course you don't bother to explain why that amuses you so much. That would be too embarrassing, I suppose. No great performance is needed to amuse fools and simpleminds.

[lucasart]

It is obviously that some people here are completely clueless as to what they are talking about, and just fabricate the wildest stuff to provide 'evidence' for their pre-conceptions. As Uri already remarked, the Johnny playing at WCCC need not be Johnny 8.00, and in fact is quite unlikely to be that. So any argument based on the rating of Johnny 8.00 is null and void. Any argument based on scaling of SMP is void, as Johnny doesn't use the cores in the way they assume.

They know nothing, and blabber just nonsense.

The only obvious thing is that you are clueless about parallel chess programming and parallel programming in general. As usual you come with your pompous approach of "I am a smart physicist, I know everything" and you come up with something stupid (like the bold statement) that immediately shows you are actually clueless about the topic. It happened with history, economy, politics on CTF, it is now happening with parallel programming here, the same story all over again. You offer no substance, not a single useful fact (all the facts you state are straw man) just one liner wishful thinking and speculation. And then you go around and insult ppl far more knowledgeable in programming and CS in general than you. Bravo, chapeau monsieur!

Milos, you're right, of course. But you're wasting your time arguing with HGM. He *has to* have the last word, especially when he's wrong.

Here's a better use for all the cores:
* use 64 for playing. Aanything beyond that is useless, and possibly harmful (TT contention).
* use the rest to mine for bitcoins.
* use the bitcoins to bribe the tournament director.

This should give you better SMP scaling in practice

[Milos]

More bullshit. Johannes explained me in some detail how Johnny uses so many cores to his advantage. I didn't see you there. How long have you talked to Johannes, to be such an expert on his program?

And of course you don't bother to explain why that amuses you so much. That would be too embarrassing, I suppose. No great performance is needed to amuse fools and simpleminds

Johannes might have explained to you, but you obviously didn't get much of it. I don't need to speak to him to know the best way of implementing speculative pondering and I've already posted the full calculation of possible gain and showed it is minuscule at best.
But ofc you didn't bother to read it, and I doubt you'd understand it. It's actually too optimistic to expect from someone who doesn't understand simple parallel programming concepts such as Amdahl's law to actually understand why any high gain in extreme parallelization of a serial algorithm is plain ridiculous.

[hgm]

* use 64 for playing. Aanything beyond that is useless, and possibly harmful (TT contention).

TT contention, when the other cores are in physically different machines, with their own memory and bus? Jeezz...

If you had bothered to inform yourself, rather than just shooting off your mouth about things you have no clue of, you would have known that Johnny's hardware consists of nodes that have only 24 cores on the same memory, and otherwise can run fully independently.

[Henk]

Just use Tom's Live Chess Viewer and watch computer chess games. Not much different from TCEC.