Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 07:57:17 09/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2003 at 10:51:56, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On September 03, 2003 at 10:44:11, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On September 03, 2003 at 10:35:11, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On September 03, 2003 at 10:26:19, Sune Fischer wrote: >>> >>>>>What is your point? >>>> >>>>Heh :) >>>> >>>>You said (remote) checking for fail_high conditions at every node was required, >>>>and I disagree. >>> >>>I never say 'at every node'. >> >>You said constantly, then I don't know what you mean by that. >> >>>Each time you get a subtree score, you must send out the score update to >>>all processors, or store it locally and rely on remote processors to check >>>it in your memory. >>> >>>Either way, you need remote accesses. >>> >>>Got it now? >> >>This is an entirely different matter, you don't get subtree scores "constantly". >>And I still say you only have to access when there is something to communicate. >> >>If you just quietly exit the subtree on a fail low, I see no need for >>communication. > >And how big is your search going to be. 10 ply minimax? > >Or do you prefer 10 ply alfabeta + nullmove. > >How many times is your processor going to check whether he is doing work for >nothing? > >Each node? >Each 10 million nodes? > >The advantage of each node is that it won't idle too much. >The advantage of each 10 million nodes is that you don't eat up bandwidth, but >that your search will be as bad as a single cpu. > >So how are you going to do it? Ah yes, agreed. There is a treade off to be made here, some experiments would have to help me decide on that. But since you don't want to spawn new search threads constantly, you don't terminate search threads constantly either. As a matter of fact the numbers are identical. -S. > >>-S. >>>-- >>>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.