Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:07:57 08/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2002 at 05:43:15, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On August 21, 2002 at 23:00:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 21, 2002 at 19:19:02, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On August 21, 2002 at 17:27:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On August 21, 2002 at 14:50:15, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 21, 2002 at 14:48:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>Under 4.0 now already. Man you get older every day. >>>>>You didn't read very well what i wrote about more cpu's joining in. >>> >>>As you did write this before reading the other replies above i will >>>ignore this. >>> >> >>I think that is the best way to handle these arguments. Ignore the stuff >>you don't want to deal with. Speculate and make wild claims with no supporting >>data for the points you do want to deal with. > >It's funny that it should be you saying this. Vincent is annoyed at you because >it's you that's doing the handwaving in this part of the argument, not the >other way around. > >I am saying that your 4.0 number cannot be used as their branching factor >because it is based on search times and ignores the variable of more processors >kickin in. Handwaving doesn't make this problem go away. I'm not handwaving at all. Why don't you take crafty on a 1 processor box and then compute its branching factor. Then do the same on a 4 processor box using only the time required to search. The numbers will track quite well. In fact, you can _not_ use the parallel nodes searched to compute a real branching factor for obvious reasons... As I have also said, until you understand their parallel search in particular, don't let a few months of fiddling with a primitive parallel search algorithm color your thinking. More processors in their case (more hardware processors not more software processors) does _not_ give them trouble "kicking them in." Their search doesn't work like yours. Not anything related, in fact... > >I still haven't seen this sufficiently addressed, so I will get some more >data about it myself. Read his thesis. Then you will understand why you are comparing apples to oranges when you compare a software search like you are doing to what they are (were) doing... The problems and issues are completely different... > >-- >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.