Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 16:07:27 09/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 08, 2002 at 13:32:31, Olaf Jenkner wrote: In fact EGTB generation is ideal for clusters with big bandwidth. question is whether anyone will write it. All i have to do is start another thread for generating and divide the indices. like thread A generates indices 0..n/2 and B generates n/2+1 .. n It's really very simple. But whether i want to program it? Not real sure, probably, as i'm going to a quad xeon to generate them and these processors are each dead slow. >On September 08, 2002 at 07:33:54, GuyHaworth wrote: > >> >>The practice of generating 6-man EGTs not only generates the EGTs but generates: >> >>- experience in generating EGTs >>- awareness of the problem that distribution of the information is not easy >> >>New ideas are coming forward from time to time, and these will be even more >>useful for larger EGTs. >> >>e.g.: If we had a GIMPS- or SETI-like distributed-community approach to >>generating EGTs, an HQ distributing the remaining unsolved problems, we would >>not be taking years to generate 6-man EGTs. >> >>We are not using parallel computers ... or distributed communities yet. >> >>Nor are we generating DTC or DTZ EGTs (which involve smaller depths and >>therefore less space), or getting a better compression in 'real-time versions of >>the EGTs' by setting 'broken' values' to 'last seen' values. >> >>This last is admittedly a 'finesse' and assumes that no 'broken' positions are >>enquired about - or at least that the access-code checks for 'broken positions'. >> >>g > >Distributed generation will not work. Even clusters can't be used >to generate EGTB, as Bob Hyatt wrote some time ago. > >Olaf Jenkner
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.