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 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.