Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 06:08:46 09/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2003 at 08:12:55, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 03, 2003 at 02:24:00, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On September 02, 2003 at 22:34:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>>Been working a year fulltime now :) >>>> >>> >>>So? It took you over a year to get your parallel search working. It took >>>me weeks. >>> >>>:) >> >>In all fairness, he did a full DTS implementation, including rewriting the >>program to a nonrecursive search, while you took an easy way out. > >I do not understand the need for non recursive search. So why don't you skip joining this discussion. Until you implement a parallel search yourself you won't see the use either. It took some commercial programmers weeks to realize why. Some of them already parallel. >I think that non recursive search simply limit your possibilities for future >developement because the code is ugly and you need to write almost the same >function again and again. Do you really believe that what the compiler can do can't be efficiently done in your own software either? >If you want to change something in the search rules then you need to change your >program in a lot of places. Why would that be, because you are not such a good programmer i guess? Why would it be any different? Let's talk about the good aspects, i save out a lot of expensive function calls. If i remember well The King isn't recursive either. Johan no doubt reads this and will say: "no way" when it isn't :) I am sure fritz is non recursive too, because calling a function each time is just too expensive for Frans. >I guess that you need to write code for every possible depth that you get and in >order to let your self to do extensions you need to write code for >depth 10,depth 10 after one extension,depth 10 after 2 extensions, and you also >need to limit the number of extensions at specific depth. > >You also limit your possibilities to extend because >you cannot decide to extend more than one ply without modifying your code. i can extend way easier of course, i can even extend looking back at previous recursions. You cannot unless you have saved all that information in arrays. I don't need to store it double then. you do. ><snipped> >> >>Diep's parallel performance does seem to be better than what you and I are >>getting. > >I have no idea about Diep's parallel performance. >I do not know about a single game of Diep on the new machine and I guess that we >need to wait for november to see its performance. > >Uri And i'm not going to post anything either till then.
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.