Originally posted by NowakowskiI gathered you have either an amd phenom or an intel quad, but as the current phenoms are limited to 3 cores instead of 4 because of a bug (afaik), and you talked about using 4, I correctly deduced you have an intel quad. that means you have either 2x4MB or 2x6MB cache depending on the model. qx9775 has 2x6MB cache, both shared between a pair of cores.
QX9775 is my processor. It indeed does, NOT have a shared cache. It's a trual quad core proccessor and does not have logical, or threaded cores. It has 12MB's of L2 cache.
Do some reading if you'd like. The Skulltrail has no issues library/cache wise.
Not to mention, that nowhere in my previous post do i mention my processor cache. So i'm not sure where you drew this from?
running two very similar, but differently implemented intensive processes simultaneously in that scenario, will likely result in heavy competition for the shared cache. the loser process will no doubt be bumped to fetch the data from the next level memory, which is typically orders of magnitude slower, more often. now, there are naturally algorithms in place to make the competition more fair, but they obviously don't aim for sharing the cache split in half, as then there would be 4 independent caches to begin with.
to make a long story short: I don't know how much the processes will be hit by random fluctuation of the cache population, but it could be anything from few percents to thousands for any data block. they're not running separate.
Hi,
Thanks for all you guys who ran the Morphy test.
Interesting I really thought Morphy would have scored higher.
I chose the Morphy game simply because:
A) It's my favourite game
B) Everyone knows it
C) I wanted to see how Morphy compared.
Have since been PM'd by one of the site MODS and have been given
a basic run down on what they look for and how they do it.
Very enlightening, very long and used jargon, but very enlightening.
I have of course been sworn to secrecy but the system seems to be
pefectly sound. And it does not matter what computer the cheats use
the system they now have in place will catch them.
(Cheats really are idiots).
Personally I really would not let it bother me.
If I suspected silicon use, I'd simply resign there and then and
never play the guy again.
But I only play a few games on here every so often just for
something to do when the Forum is looking boring.
So I can now see the point of why you 100+ gamers get all uptight
about silicon swindlers. Though it's not as widespread as what people
think. They are some good players here - very good players.
So sometimes give them the benefit of the doubt.
PS. One of the very regular posters on the Chess Forum is a 'spotter'
for the MOD team. He has a 100% record.
Keep up the good work mate. (you know who are).
For me this has been an intriguing, stimulating and interesting thread.
Oh and amusing - the threads are always amusing.
I sometimes laugh out loud at work reading them and then
giggle like a loon for the rest of the day.
One day somebody must put a book together containing some of these threads.
Hmmmm....
My advice to all correspondence chess players:
Always operate under the assumption that at least some of your opponents are cheating. They may be using an engine, or they may be discussing the position with their 1900-rated friend at the club. (Don't laugh, as this could be a big advantage in a game between two 1500-rated players.) If you operate under the assumption that something "funny" might be going on, then no matter what happens, you won't be upset. Cheating and correspondence chess just go together, and there's nothing anybody can do about it.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Oh really i think not, cannot be perfectly sound when at least 1/3 to 2/3 of the top players are suspected engine users.
I have of course been sworn to secrecy but the system seems to be
pefectly sound. And it does not matter what computer the cheats use
the system they now have in place will catch them.
Originally posted by wormwoodYea, their isn't 4 individual L2 cache's, however they don't "Share" the way your thinking. They allocate data into different threads. Yes their is two individual L2 Cache blocks. Yes two cores access each one. No, data is not collidable. The issues arise on miscalc as with all other high speed processors. No X86 processor is capable of 4 individual cache's currently. You'll find that each is capable of calculation at the same time without collision.
I gathered you have either an amd phenom or an intel quad, but as the current phenoms are limited to 3 cores instead of 4 because of a bug (afaik), and you talked about using 4, I correctly deduced you have an intel quad. that means you have either 2x4MB or 2x6MB cache depending on the model. qx9775 has 2x6MB cache, both shared between a pair of cores.
r be anything from few percents to thousands for any data block. they're not running separate.
http://www.compusa.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3749852&Sku=CP1-DUO-QX9775
If you go down, even in the marketing you can read under the "Wide Dynamic Execution" and below about how the processors can still execute simulataneously with no latency issues. The reason being, that the Cache is written in 45 nm versions. Threading is incredibly fast. The processor and cache won't have fallout very often. Thus fluctuation should remain rather minimum.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Well if no1marauder has a 100% record for spotting cheats, perhaps we should all try to remember who it was he accused of cheating today. I wasted many hours on my two games against that person, thinking that I was playing a strong player rather than an engine.
PS. One of the very regular posters on the Chess Forum is a 'spotter'
for the MOD team. He has a 100% record.
Keep up the good work mate. (you know who are).
Originally posted by eldragonflyHi,
Again i disagree. i think that cheating via chess engine is very widespread on this site, it seems ridiculous to downplay it.
I can show you 100's nay 1000's of blunders on this site
where it is plainly obvious no engine was invovled.
Send me one game by PM that is currently being played
(not a proven case from the past - a game being played now)
where you can convince me an engine is at work.
You say the site is teeming with engines - send me one.
I want the game ID. so I can check it for myself.
I now know what to look for.
I'll give you 3 days.
You say it's widespread (your words). So it should be easy.
If you do find one and I too am convinced I think we should
make some kind of agreement we will NOT shop the player involved
as what were doing may be frowned upon by the powers that be.
(we should both make a mental note never to play him/her).
Good Luck
Originally posted by greenpawn34NVM. I'll PM you.
Hi,
I can show you 100's nay 1000's of blunders on this site
where it is plainly obvious no engine was invovled.
Send me one game by PM that is currently being played
(not a proven case from the past - a game being played now)
where you can convince me an engine is at work.
You say the site is teeming with engines - send me one.
I want the ga the powers that be.
(we should both make a mental note never to play him/her).
Good Luck
Originally posted by IndianaSwiftOne game is meaningless. There were other games in that thread with lower match ups. Indeed, Paul Morphy scored higher in this thread than a game from the nameless one in t'other thread. Statisticians need a lot of data and so far there isn't much so I will offer no opinion on the nameless one. I could do the analysis myself but it is a time consuming task without automation.
So does anyone still deny that "He who cannot be named" has been using an engine? With 97% to 100% matching moves with Fritz! I just dont think its possible without actually using Fritz, Im curious to how you guys explain this if you still think the man is innocent.