Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:04:32 08/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2002 at 05:34:59, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On August 21, 2002 at 22:58:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>Or in the case of Deep Blue, the time lost because the SP2 couldn't >>keep the chess processors busy 100% of the time, as has been explained >>previously... > >That is exactly what I am saying. More processors = harder >to keep em all busy. > >-- >GCP You can say that all you want, but it is _not_ the way the search worked. Keeping the processors busy (the chess processors) was not an issue of "how many are there"? It was an issue of balance between the speed of a chess processor and the SP2 that was "feeding" it. They could double the number of chess processors and the difficulty of keeping them "fed" would not change at all. But just changing the search depth iteration by iteration caused many more problems...
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.