Author: Frank Phillips
Date: 10:22:06 05/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 03, 2004 at 09:20:51, martin fierz wrote: >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 Ah yes, the universal physical constants: factor of three, factor of 10, and +/- 10% :-) 10% or 11, 12 .... 30% seems close to me too. However, I guess that most of the comments have little to do with Bob's data or the expected speed up factor for multiprocessor machines ;-)
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.