Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:29:51 08/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 18, 2003 at 12:08:35, Christophe Theron wrote: >On August 17, 2003 at 22:15:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 17, 2003 at 03:37:22, Johan de Koning wrote: >> >>>On August 16, 2003 at 05:13:23, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>> >>>>On August 16, 2003 at 03:24:47, Johan de Koning wrote: >>>> >>>>>>Nondeterminism is something you can live with. Forget about getting >>>>>>the engine working on multiprocessor if you don't. >>>>> >>>>>So far you sound like someone trying to mimic Vincent. :-) >>>> >>>>But you sound like someone who avoided my point :) >>>> >>>>At some point you must choose between determinism and performance. >>>>I don't want to go to lengths to keep the engine deterministic only >>>>to find out later it can't be maintained AND I've lost time and >>>>speed trying to put off the inevitable. >>> >>>I'm not avoiding your point, I'm simply denying it. :-) >>> >>>There isn't such a thing as the point of no determinism, there are many points >>>at which choices can be made. If performance gain is small (playing games) I >>>will prefer determinism and simplicity. If gain is large (interactive analysis) >>>I will prefer determinism and perfection. In case determinism is impossible >>>(deep) I will prefer to maintain determinism for all other cases. >>> >>>>Hence the Santa Claus reference. You can stubbornly keep believing, >>>>but one day, he'll stop bringing presents. Or maybe it was just me who >>>>was a bad boy. >>> >>>If you quit being a bad boy Santa will return. :-) >>> >>>... Johan >> >> >>If you ever do a parallel search, forget about determinism. If you don't, >>forget about winning games. :) In another 5 years _all_ computers will >>have more than one cpu, on the same chip. > > > >Bob it seems that you have a very selective definition of the term "computer" >and that you have chosen to ignore a very large part of the computerized devices >that real people use every day. > >Less than 5% of all the computers on the planet will have more than one CPU in >10 years from now. Would you care to make a wager? 100% of _all_ intel processors sold today have two procesors, in a form called "hyper-threading". This will be extended over the next few years until a single "cpu" is really two or four completely independent processors. Just hide and watch... And no, I don't care about palms and the like. I'm talking about the traditional desktop/laptop PC. Times they are a'changing... > >I would even tend to think that at this time and in the foreseeable future the >percentage of multiple CPU computers is not going to grow (in the population of >all the computers built every year). You had better check your numbers. I just taught a parallel programming class with 52 students. 9 of them had dual-processor machines. > >In the context of this discussion, multiple CPU computers are for me computers >that require explicit programming in order to take advantage of the extra CPUs. > > Same here... to an extent. However, if you do as my wife does, and fire off a huge database query, and then do something _else_ while she is waiting, then that second processor comes in very handy, with no additional programming on her part... Or if you are compiling lots of stuff. Or -you-name-it ... > > Christophe > > > > > >>Therefore, determinism can't realistically be avoided. Clearing the hash >>table between searches is one of those "theoretical" issues. It is _clearly_ >>better not to do so, from a raw performance perspective. For testing, it has >>its merits, and I often turn it on myself when debugging. But _only_ when >>debugging.
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.