Author: Uri Blass
Date: 21:44:55 10/03/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 04, 2001 at 00:28:35, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On October 04, 2001 at 00:11:37, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On October 03, 2001 at 18:53:31, Dave Gomboc wrote: >> >>>Observing that the parallel algorithm was super-linearly quicker immediately >>>gives rise to a superior sequential algorithm: alternate checking from the front >>>of the array and the back of the array for the zero. It would quickly be >>>observed that the parallel algorithm does not have super-linear speedup over >>>this superior sequential algorithm. In addition, the sequential algorithm may >>>be further optimized by ignoring the front of the array altogether, which would >>>reduce the parallel speedup further. >>> >>>To ignore the superior sequential algorithm and instead publish results >>>comparing only the original, poor sequential algorithm with the parallel >>>algorithm is not merely disingenuous but simply bad science. >>> >>>Dave >> >>The question here is a practical question. >> >>It is possible that the original sequential algorithm that chess programs use is >>a poor algorithm and this is the point of Bruce. >> >>Uri <snipped> >And that point was already superseded weeks ago. Both Bob and I have clearly >stated earlier that comparing a parallel algorithm against a _bad_ sequential >algorithm is useless. It is not useless because you may learn from it to improve the sequential algorithm. It is also possible that the programmer only cares about using more than one processor and in that case (s)he is not going to waste time about improving the sequential search. Uri
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.