Author: martin fierz
Date: 01:16:12 05/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 2004 at 21:44:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: >I re-read your stuff. I think the way you did the calculation was a bit more >favorable than the way I do it. IE I always use the _last_ PV produced by the >1-cpu search, and the time for that _same_ PV on the N-cpu search. and what do you do if that same PV of yours doesn't turn up again?? that's the reason i did it this way - there were two instances where after completion of the ply the 4-way crafty wanted to play a different move than 1-way crafty. i wanted to take the last known PV, but couldn't because of this. cheers martin >The first >move is more difficult to search in parallel than the remainder of the ply-1 >moves... that is why I split at the root when possible in fact. > >But, as the saying goes, you can prove nearly anything depending on how you >choose to interpret data. Your interpretation is hardly invalid... And might >sometimes be more favorable rather than less. > >Who knows...
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.