Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:46:14 12/04/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 04, 2000 at 15:33:51, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>On December 04, 2000 at 15:25:34, Eugene Nalimov wrote:
>
>>On December 04, 2000 at 15:09:37, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>
>>>On December 04, 2000 at 14:58:17, Andrew Dados wrote:
>>>
>>>>On December 04, 2000 at 14:53:02, Bo Persson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On December 04, 2000 at 14:43:06, Andrew Dados wrote:
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>Dear Ernst.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>First I find your post (and many past ones) of very little merit, just 'flagrant
>>>>>>commercial exhortations' at best. Second you can't ask everyone to read your
>>>>>>book to understand what you mean if you can't write it clearly in few lines. And
>>>>>>finally I fail to see what part of Vincents post was utter nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-Andrew-
>>>>>
>>>>>Hey!
>>>>>
>>>>>The book is also his thesis. Maybe it is difficult to give a half page summary
>>>>>of several year's work!
>>>>
>>>>Maybe... But giving same answer for each problem ('Go buy my book!') suggests
>>>>something else to me.
>>>>-Andrew-
>>>
>>>Let's not try to imagine what happens when he would have had a
>>>commercial program.
>>
>>So you have a commercial program?
>
>What is 'he' referring to in the above sentence?
>
>>>Note that i used about 184mb RAM in 3 different caches with EGTB
>>>information stored.
>>> - 150mb transpositionhashtable ==> i store EGTB there too in a special way
>>
>>So it is not exclusively EGTB cache, right?
>
>of course not. also transpositiontable but with some obvious
>additions to let it perform better for egtb.
>
>>> - 2x2mb egtb cache
>>> - 2x15 mb wasted for just the egtb indices as i'm dual processor.
>>
>>Trash. There is only one set of EGTB cache and indices, regardless of number of
>>CPUs, at least in the code I wrote.
>
>I'm multiprocessor, please explain me how!
>
>I only saw some multiTHREADING code.
>
>There is a small but existing difference between the 2.
Eugene doesn't know that you aren't using threads... you are creating
new processes with nothing shared except what you explicitly share via
shmget()/shmat(). I don't think that is the way to do this on an SMP
machine, but that is your choice, of course. And with the way you have
implemented things, there _are_ 4 copies of the cache, since your processes
don't share everything implicitly as is done using threads.
That is one of many disadvantages...
>
>>Eugene
>>
>>>Note i probe also in the qsearch which most people don't do. I initially
>>>didn't do it either but then started drawing some games on the internet
>>>because i didn't do it.
>>>
>>>But for sure i don't want to waste another 16mb RAM from the expensive
>>>RAM i have now for another EGTB cache.
>>>
>>>Instead more likely is that i convert the EGTB to my own format after
>>>which users who usually don't have an additional 15mb for egtb indices
>>>to let them do without.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I have read the book and found it very interesting, full of new information and
>>>>>a very good buy.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>BoPersson
>>>>>bop@malmo.mail.telia.com
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.