Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 08:52:17 09/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 20, 2000 at 08:52:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >Jonathan Schaeffer tried this a good while back with his distributed version >of Phoenix. Has he published anything on the net about this subject? >The problem is, suppose your "positional" search says play "X" >while the tactical search says "X loses"? I guess that would depend on the actual evaluation. Maybe in very rough terms something like: if the tactical evaluation is very poor then go with positional, unless the number of pieces on the board favours a tactical approach or the position isn't at least semiclosed. Maybe a cpu for comparative evaluation would be ideal as well :o). You've got four. What should the last one do? :o)) >It is not easy to coordinate a pair >of search results like this. And remember both would be searching the same >part of the tree, twice. That wouldn't be a major problem IMO as the actual result would still (hopefully) be superior to the single cpu approach. The SMP approach is just a remedy to the lack of single cpu clock speed as far as I can tell, not an advanced computer chess concept. Am I wrong about that? >a standard SMP approach is way more efficient... and also easier to understand >when you try to address the above problem. I think it's too simple an approach, but I know too little about it to put weight behind that opinion. Is there any available papers for technical morons about SMP? Best wishes... Mogens
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.