Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 08:34:53 08/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2002 at 11:07:57, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... Crafty != DT. Moreover, later in this post you say that it's an apples to oranges comparison. Again I'm missing some consistency here. >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... Whether I have read their thesis is completely irrelevant to the very basic fact that you cannot calculate a branching factor when you're looking at *times* in a situation where the *nodes per second* is variable. The traditional idea of a branching factor becomes meaningless in this situation, so quoting 4.0 as theirs is just as meaningless. -- 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.