Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 12:30:46 11/09/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 09, 1999 at 14:55:40, Pete Galati wrote: >This week the local pbs station ran a Scientific American program about robots, >most of it was about robots that tried to emulate movement of cockroaches and >tuna (not so easy). > >But the more interesting part of the program was focussing on teams of small >independent robots who works together to play socker and there was separate >developement teams who competed agaist each other with their teems of robots, >this was fun to watch this part. > >I forget who won the tounament, it might have been Cornel Univ. > >So the next day I more or less associated this with what Dann was talking about >with using a large amount of CPUs to run a program since each cpu could be >dedicated to a peice. My memory's a bit foggy about what Dann had said about >how he planned to do this though. > >In my mind the way I would see it being done would be 1 cpu for the 8 pawns, 1 >cpu for the 2 Knights, 1 for the 2 Bishops, 1 for the 2 Rooks, 1 for the Queen, >1 for the King, and then 2 more cpu, 1 for the commanding general (not a piece, >and 1 last cpu for the medics (not a piece) and the medics job would not really >be to care for the dead piece (captured) but to account for and repair the >damage done. 8 CPUs > >Too far fetched? Probably. I don't remember how Dann related what he was >attempting, and I probably won't dig his posts up. I just wanted to throw the >concept out there the way I see it. Is that more or less what you're doing >Dann? My idea is more related to permutations than to pieces. If I have some board position p, there are a set of possible subsequent positions one ply later. So I do this: 0. Have a thread that analyzes the root for ce. This thread is permanent for the duration of the iteration. 1. Have a thread that analyzes the root for checkmates. This thread is permanent for the duration of the iteration. 2. Have a thread that analyzes each possible next position. These threads are transient. After a time period called heartbeat, they check back in. The ones that are not finding anything good abandon their tasks and analyze subsequent positions from the ones that are doing well. This method obviously takes a pile of CPU's and the more the merrier. It will work effectively only at the longer time controls but will work well on message passing machines and other non SMP architectures.
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.