Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:44:37 09/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 04, 2003 at 03:56:07, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 04, 2003 at 03:44:22, Johan de Koning wrote: > >>On September 03, 2003 at 09:08:46, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>[to recurse or not to recurse] >> >>>Let's talk about the good aspects, i save out a lot of expensive function calls. >> >>Funny. :-) >> >>>If i remember well The King isn't recursive either. Johan no doubt reads this >>>and will say: "no way" when it isn't :) >> >>No Way! >>I'm not sure if I just confirmed your memory or if I denied it. >> >>Now please stop calling my name, or Frans', or whoever's, in threads that we >>don't want to read at all. Since "we know shit" about parallelorisming we won't >>be able to back you up. Try evaluation or TT latency. :-) > >I think that the subject of being recursive or not being recursive >is important not only for parallelorism. > >For me it is more interesting if there are programmers who tried recursive and >non recursive for one processor and if they got speed improvement from the >non recursive possibility and how much speed improvement did they get from it. > >Uri I did both on the Cray. I couldn't tell any difference in terms of speed. A procedure call is _not_ slow on all machines. When I started Crafty, I first wrote the search and stuck it into Cray Blitz to make sure I understood the negamax stuff correctly. When I noticed that the speed didn't change, I was much happier with the negamax approach for simplicity, and I kept it. I would prefer the iterated approach for parallel search, and one day I might do it again, but for the moment, what I have works just fine.
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.