Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:24:47 09/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 04, 2002 at 14:18:38, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On September 04, 2002 at 13:36:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >But you make stupid assumptions. For example, DIEP profits about >for 40% of the nodes in such a case. Imagine it profits 40%. Consider us "even" then. I make "stupid assumptions". You make "stupid statements"... > >That's dual with double node count than single. So run A it runs >with n nodes a second. run B it runs with n/2 nodes a second. > >It means a speedup at 2 processors of > 2.0 is very well possible. It isn't possible. I have explained why a dozen times. I'm not going there again. You report > 2.0, and you get lauged at. It's up to you. >It simply says nothing on how a program lineairly scales. the >'speedup' number is no longer a speedup number but an index which >is comparable with not a single scientists result. > >If your goal is to write somethign that cannot be compared to any other >research, then i would love to hear it. My goal was to answer the question "how much does the parallel search speed up Cray Blitz in a real game?" Nothing more. Nothing less. You can ask any question you want. And you can either choose to answer them yourself, or wait until someone else does. I chose to answer this question myself, and I did... I don't care about your "hand-waving" about hash table entries. I set up the best experimental test I could to answer the question. Is it flawed? possibly. Could it be done better? I doubt it. The very concept of parallel speedup is non-trivial to measure. Even with fixed-depth searches. A game doesn't have that luxury so the results are certainly going to be somewhat different. But, who cares? I want to play games, not run tests...
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.