Author: Tord Romstad
Date: 09:15:21 07/28/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 28, 2004 at 10:17:37, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >On July 28, 2004 at 04:44:51, Tord Romstad wrote: > >>On July 27, 2004 at 13:52:49, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >> >>>Perhaps that is a bit extreme :) There really aren't that many parallel >>>programs out there: >>> >>>The Baron (dual only), Crafty, Diep, Fritz, Junior, Sjeng, Shredder, SOS, Zappa >>>(very little testing) >> >>Amy, Hydra, Nejmet. I am sure there are others, but I can't remember any at >>the moment. > >Hmm, I didn't know Amy and Nejmet were parallel. Do you know what method they >use? No, I don't, but I'm fairly sure they are both parallel. >>I don't doubt that it is very difficult (although "one of the most difficult >>programming tasks out there" is a pretty extreme claim) > >Well, first we must define "programming task" :) I do not include algorithms in >this description. OK, that makes the claim a bit less extreme. :-) >In other words, I mean: given an algorithm, create machine >code (through compilers if necessary) that implements it. In my opinion, >parallel algorithms are many times more difficult than serial algorithms, Of course. >and alpha beta search is one of the more difficult ones. I find this a bit hard to believe, but I suppose I am not the right person to speak with authority until I have given it a try myself. My impression of computer chess in general so far is that everything is relatively easy to implement (otherwise I wouldn't even have managed to write my program in C), but that finding good ideas is very difficult. I find most of the computer algebra stuff I do to be more difficult to implement than computer chess algorithms by at least an order of maginitude. It is possible that trying to implement a parallel alpha beta search will change my mind about this, but so far I doubt it. The bottom line is probably that we are both too young and inexperienced to judge which programming tasks are the most difficult. Let's meet and discuss it again in 30 years or so. :-) >, but I think the >>small number of parallel programs has to do with lack of interest as well as >>difficulty. How many programmers have tried to parallelize their engines? >>I doubt that the list would be much longer than the list of successful >>implementations above. > >I think that is mainly due to a lack of access to dual machines. Most of the >people who tried have been the ones with reasonably strong programs already, Yes, otherwise it would obviously be a waste of time. Unless you already have a very strong program, there are easier and better ways to improve than adding parallel search. >and no one who failed would be talking about it ;) I am not so sure about this. It seems reasonable that some of those who try to write a parallel program would ask lots of questions here in the process. If there were a lot of failed attempts to implement a parallel search out there, we should have seen many such questions from people who never managed to finish their task. Tord
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.