Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:38:00 09/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2003 at 09:08:46, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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? I guess that the only reason is that I thought about the wrong way to implement it. > >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. Yes I have arrays for this kind of information. Maybe it is better if I change movei not to be recursive even without parallel search. It may be interesting to know if there are programmers who did this change(not only in chess) and if they earned speed from it how much did they earn from it(I am interested in it mainly about non parrallel programs). It may be interesting if the gain is bigger for programs with a lot of data that practically the computer store twice when they are recursive(I plan to have more data in special arrays that give me information of every ply(like the information that I have about the evaluation of every ply) and before doing it maybe it is better if I change movei to non recursive search. Uri
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.