Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:21:58 08/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2001 at 20:48:30, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On August 30, 2001 at 14:43:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 30, 2001 at 14:25:39, Scott Gasch wrote: >> >>>On August 30, 2001 at 14:07:50, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>Dumb question: >>>>Why not let them all have their own move generator and just share the hash >>>>table? >>> >>>I guess that's one approach -- run them as seperate processes in seperate >>>virtual address spaces and simply share the hash table. I was planning on using >>>simple threads in the same address space though. Not sure why, seems more >>>straightforward to me... >> >> >>One reason is that there are other things to share. Killer moves. History >>move counts. move lists (you need to share a move list at a ply where more >>than one processor is searching) and so forth... > >No you don't want to share killer moves. History moves do not give >a speedup if you write a bunch of extra rules to order moves. Sure you do, if you do it right. I share them. And history moves are better than random, and work fine for everyone that has tried them. There's dozens of things that need to be shared. I can dump my shared structure here if needed to show what I share. It is pretty large however.
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.