Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:03:06 05/02/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 02, 2004 at 19:36:13, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On May 02, 2004 at 18:49:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 02, 2004 at 18:23:44, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On May 02, 2004 at 13:12:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>He sent me an email trying to justify his poor performance. He first claimed >>>>that it was an artifact of null-move. Testing disproved that. >>> >>>What testing? >>> >>>-- >>>GCP >> >> >>The testing you and I both did. It showed a minimal speedup difference if you >>recall. 2.8 vs 3.1... not _that_ significant... > >For 4 processors, it looks small (I don't happen to agree an 11% speed >decrease is 'not significant' - I would be very happy which such a speedup). >But it's not that easy to get that 0.3 back. The real problem is that >scalability is reduced, and there are consequences at 8 or 16 cpus. I don't see any at 8. I don't personally have access to a 16-way box yet so I can't say anything there. But there is nothing that really makes null-move hurt parallel search... > >As far as I'm concernced, the testing showed that Vincent was right and >that recursive nullmove *does* change things. You were firmly claiming >that it didn't matter a thing, before. So your recollection of whose >claims were disproven is certainly a bit selective, to say the least. No. You have always had a selective memory when it comes to Vincent. His claim was that null-move made a _huge_ difference... going from 2.8 to 3.1 is _not_ a huge difference on 4 cpus. It is a difference. But it is within the noise range for non-deterministic behavior anyway... That was a red herring from the get-go... > >-- >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.