Author: martin fierz
Date: 15:51:58 05/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 03, 2004 at 11:04:59, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >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 > >As a physicist, you consider all numbers within an order of magnitude as equal >;) umm, you would fail any physics course that i teach :-) cheers martin >anthony
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.