Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 16:23:46 09/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2003 at 11:53:58, Robert Hyatt 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. >> >>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. > > > >You don't do recursive calls, instead you have a loop that increments ply >and goes back to the top for the next level of the tree. The reason this is >needed is that you want to be able to see the _entire_ tree, and tell a >processor to start work _there_ (at some specific ply where you are pretty >certain all moves need to be searched.) WIth a recursive search, this is >very difficult to do. It is easy to split the tree at the current ply, but >it is _very_ difficult to split somewhere else. > > >> >>If you want to change something in the search rules then you need to change your >>program in a lot of places. > >No. rather than recursive calls, you execute the same loop over and over, once >for each ply of the search... > > >> >>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. >> >><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 wouldn't it be easier to simply put all your recursive variables into some huge struct and essentially manage the stack yourself (while still traversing it with a recursive function over a loop) ?
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.