Author: martin fierz
Date: 06:20:51 05/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 03, 2004 at 02:14:53, Vincent Diepeveen 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... > >2.8 for with nullmove >3.0 for without nullmove > >A major difference. based upon 30+ positions. > >And both not *close* to speedup(n) = 1.0 + 0.7(n-1) i know nothing about this thread, i know nothing about multiprocessing, but i do know that the above formula gives 3.1 for n=4. i don't know about you, but i consider both 2.8 and 3.0 to be "close" to 3.1 - as a physicist, i tend to think of numbers within 10% as equal ;-) cheers martin
This page took 0.02 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.