Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 08:43:14 09/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 17, 2001 at 11:18:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 17, 2001 at 06:47:39, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On September 17, 2001 at 05:07:55, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>The problems are huge. I do not know who wrote the 6-7 >>crap. Crafty AFAIK never was running over a network properly. >> >>Bob can answer this better of course, but it's complete nonsense >>that you get 6.0 - 7.0 out of 16 processors at a 100mbit network. > >I don't agree. They _did_ it. Schaeffer _did_ it. Others have done >it also... If in worldwar I the biplanes were THE way to do dogfight, it doesn't mean that for nowadays supersonic fighters (i would nearly write down scram fighters) the way to go is biplane. That's a very good compare with the experiments from Schaeffer with todays computerchess techniques used. > >> >>Most likely the speedup is for a crafty version with more extensions >>WITH shared memory. speedup is in general worse when the searchspace >>you search is not overlapping for each processor. >> >>>Hi all, >>> >>>I missed most of the relevant thread but after quickly >>>scanning through some posts I wonder why nobody has >>>brought up APHID. >>> >>>The reported speedups for Crafty (version 12.something) >>>with 16 processors are 6-7 without shared memory, and 9 >>>with shared memory. >>> >>>Aditionally. the library itself as well as a 'distributed' >>>Crafty that uses it are already available *now*. It shouldn't >>>be too hard to adapt the very latest Crafties to it either. >>> >>>Whats the general opnion about it? Nobody experimented >>>with this Crafty? >>> >>>-- >>>GCP
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.