Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 14:13:42 09/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 04, 2003 at 15:08:12, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On September 04, 2003 at 09:56:21, Anthony Cozzie wrote: > >>also note that Diep & Sjeng probably have better move ordering than crafty, not >>to mention searching more slowly; its not suprising that it works for them to >>split lower in the tree. > >Uh, that's a tricky comparison. You don't know how I or Vincent order >our moves Crafty is GPL, ergo you should be at least as good or you need to read the crafty source again :) and I fail to see why you 'know' that we are searching slower >(hint: NPS is not a good indicator). why not? if it takes 1ms to evaluate a node, then split overhead is relatively smaller. admittedly I've never written a parallel search, but this seems logical to me. >Also, for splitting it's not so much move ordering itself that matters - >you can use additional heuristics to estimate whether you are at al ALL >node. That's one of the nice tricks in DTS. > >There's much more to it as well. For example the overhead in the splitting >itself. > >-- >GCP
This page took 0.01 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.