Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 09:57:20 09/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 11, 2002 at 11:41:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 11, 2002 at 07:33:56, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On September 11, 2002 at 00:36:21, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>Since the speedup was almost linear, I would say it is better than any [other] >>>known method. >> >>It's 7-15 times slower than alphabeta. >> >>If you start out by being 7 times slower, it's not hard to get good speedups. >> >>-- >>GCP > > >that is the point. And it also takes a huge amount of memory since best-first >has to store the whole tree as it is traversed. They didn't do this at all. In fact they search in a very pathetic way, they search using a selfdefined form of bestfirst search. There is no garantuee they find anything. Obviously such approaches work for tricks with a small b.f., I find their parallel speedup very bad, considering the way they search is ideally parallellizable. Lineair i'd say. It is not clear to what crafty version they compared and at what machine. I get on average over 10 times faster times with crafty to solve something. From memory i say their box had 500Mhz cpu's, crafty was probably run on a box of around 200Mhz i would estimate. Best regards, Vincent
This page took 0.01 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.