about the term of equal hardware

[CMCanavessi]

Tell me more about Zeta GPU?

In short, it is a port of Zeta Dva engine to OpenCL to run on a GPU.

https://www.chessprogramming.org/Zeta

https://zeta-chess.app26.de/

--
Srdja

classic parallel Alpha-Beta on GPU and open source. WOW. Why you not in TCEC?

~2200 elo for now

[j.korhonen]

Tell me more about Zeta GPU?

In short, it is a port of Zeta Dva engine to OpenCL to run on a GPU.

https://www.chessprogramming.org/Zeta

https://zeta-chess.app26.de/

--
Srdja

classic parallel Alpha-Beta on GPU and open source. WOW. Why you not in TCEC?

~2200 elo for now

Rating on GPU or CPU?

[jp]

If all the hardware is available for any engine to use, and it's just the dev's decision to take advantage of it or not, then there's no such thing as "advantage". That's exactly the situation at TCEC.

Clearly not a true statement in general.

[smatovic]

Tell me more about Zeta GPU?

In short, it is a port of Zeta Dva engine to OpenCL to run on a GPU.

https://www.chessprogramming.org/Zeta

https://zeta-chess.app26.de/

--
Srdja

classic parallel Alpha-Beta on GPU and open source. WOW. Why you not in TCEC?

Well, to port a relative simple engine to run on a GPU and to get a
competitive engine running on GPU are two different tasks...

https://zeta-chess.app26.de/post/zeta-v099/

--
Srdja

[CMCanavessi]

If all the hardware is available for any engine to use, and it's just the dev's decision to take advantage of it or not, then there's no such thing as "advantage". That's exactly the situation at TCEC.

Clearly not a true statement in general.

What part is not true?

[jp]

Clearly not a true statement in general.

What part is not true?

The bit in bold. Just making all of the same hardware available to all sides doesn't mean there cannot be an "advantage" for one side. I don't see how anyone can argue that it must.

[Robert Pope]

Clearly not a true statement in general.

What part is not true?

The bit in bold. Just making all of the same hardware available to all sides doesn't mean there cannot be an "advantage" for one side. I don't see how anyone can argue that it must.

It's a bit of semantics, I think. If a tournament is run on 64-bit CPUs instead of 32-bit CPUs, are you giving bitboard engines an "advantage"?

Yes: Bitboard engines can provide a 64-bit compile that will run much more quickly on 64-bit CPUs, while mailbox engines hardly gain any speed at all.

No: Mailbox engine authors know full well that the tourney is run on a 64-bit CPU. If they decide not to invest the resources to take advantage of the architecture, that's on them.

And the same "advantage" comparison crops up when you go to 1 vs 4 vs 64 CPUs, or 1 GB hash limit to 128 GB hash limit, or no GPU to yes GPU, or own book access vs not. The same argument about giving advantage exists.

[j.korhonen]

Tell me more about Zeta GPU?

In short, it is a port of Zeta Dva engine to OpenCL to run on a GPU.

https://www.chessprogramming.org/Zeta

https://zeta-chess.app26.de/

--
Srdja

classic parallel Alpha-Beta on GPU and open source. WOW. Why you not in TCEC?

Well, to port a relative simple engine to run on a GPU and to get a
competitive engine running on GPU are two different tasks...

https://zeta-chess.app26.de/post/zeta-v099/

--
Srdja

How hard it will be to port SF on openCL, and how strong it will be if compare with Lc0?

[jp]

The bit in bold. Just making all of the same hardware available to all sides doesn't mean there cannot be an "advantage" for one side. I don't see how anyone can argue that it must.

It's a bit of semantics, I think. If a tournament is run on 64-bit CPUs instead of 32-bit CPUs, are you giving bitboard engines an "advantage"?

Yes: Bitboard engines can provide a 64-bit compile that will run much more quickly on 64-bit CPUs, while mailbox engines hardly gain any speed at all.
No: Mailbox engine authors know full well that the tourney is run on a 64-bit CPU. If they decide not to invest the resources to take advantage of the architecture, that's on them.

And the same "advantage" comparison crops up when you go to 1 vs 4 vs 64 CPUs, or 1 GB hash limit to 128 GB hash limit, or no GPU to yes GPU, or own book access vs not. The same argument about giving advantage exists.

It's worse in the GPU/not, book/not scenario, I think, because the engines are so different it's not just deciding to or not to invest the resources.

[Robert Pope]

The bit in bold. Just making all of the same hardware available to all sides doesn't mean there cannot be an "advantage" for one side. I don't see how anyone can argue that it must.

It's a bit of semantics, I think. If a tournament is run on 64-bit CPUs instead of 32-bit CPUs, are you giving bitboard engines an "advantage"?

Yes: Bitboard engines can provide a 64-bit compile that will run much more quickly on 64-bit CPUs, while mailbox engines hardly gain any speed at all.
No: Mailbox engine authors know full well that the tourney is run on a 64-bit CPU. If they decide not to invest the resources to take advantage of the architecture, that's on them.

And the same "advantage" comparison crops up when you go to 1 vs 4 vs 64 CPUs, or 1 GB hash limit to 128 GB hash limit, or no GPU to yes GPU, or own book access vs not. The same argument about giving advantage exists.

It's worse in the GPU/not, book/not scenario, I think, because the engines are so different it's not just deciding to or not to invest the resources.

Sure, you can argue it's worse, and maybe an alpha-beta style engine will never be able to leverage a GPU as well as a NN, but then it's still a conscious decision to stay on that path. Just as it is a conscious decision that I keep my engine single-threaded. But I'm not going to argue that because I have decided to keep my engine single-core, that other programmers are being given an advantage.