Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 09:19:36 05/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 03, 2004 at 12:04:49, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >Honestly, I can't say that I understand the argument here. > >First, it is not clear to me that DTS implies any splitting method. So it >seems like, depending on your splitting method, your speedup could be 0-M, >where M any number ;) That's correct - the papers I saw only give vague indications on where to split. >Secondly, I didn't think Crafty used DTS. So it is not clear why results with >Crafty reflect on DTS. Robert claimed nullmove makes no difference in speedup. I showed that at least in Crafty, it does. I've seen no reliable data about DTS. I've seen reliable data nullmove matters for speedup in a related algorithm. Given this, I see no reasons to believe Roberts claims about nullmove not mattering anything until I see any evidence for them. At least the opposite claim has *something* going for it. >In fact, I thought that almost no one was using DTS >nowadays because it requires an iterative search. I don't know - it only makes much sense when you go multiprocessor, and there aren't many people who've done that and talked about it. >The only clear statement here seems to be that Crafty is less efficient with >nullmove is on by 3-10%, depending on the position. Even if you prove the >results are not identical (with X probability) it is clear null move is not >_massively_ affecting the performance. Not for 4 cpus. I doubt that's going to be the area where the methods distantiate themselves much from another in the first place. The hard part is 16, 64, 512 cpus, and there this could matter A LOT. -- GCP
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.