Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 08:27:30 09/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2003 at 11:38:00, Uri Blass wrote: >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). > Several years ago I wrote a non-recursive function to solve the problem of the Hanoi Towers for a programming course. It was clearly faster than the recursive version, but of course I do not remember the actual speed-up. José. >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.