Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 14:57:15 09/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 17, 2004 at 17:54:03, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On September 17, 2004 at 17:49:50, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On September 17, 2004 at 16:56:52, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>Abstract: >>> >>>"In this project it is examined how the use of a specific data structure called >>>a bitboard affects the performance of parallel search." >>> >>>Conclusions: >>> >>>"Our experiments showed that speedup was not near ideal using many processors. >>>Whether or not this was due to the use of bitboards is unclear." >>> >>>So, what was the goal of this research again? :) >>> >>>Kudos for including your source in any case - at least your results can be >>>verified and further investigated, even if you didn't really manage to produce >>>much useful results... >> >>I think everyone is being a little harsh. >> >>Similar to the paper by Marcel V.K., it is an interesting piece of work. It is >>easy to read and understand. >> >>Of those people who have managed to accomplish a parallel implementation of a >>chess engine (I am guessing that there are less than 10 in the world) only a few >>have bothered to explain what they are doing, and only Dr. Hyatt and Mr. >>Rasmussen have given out their source code. >> >>Writing a parallel chess engine is not trivial in the least, since it definitely >>requires an understanding of multithreaded programming which is also fairly >>unusual. >> >>In addition, truthful scientific research should often end with "We're not too >>sure what we really have demonstrated here." when that is the real end result. >> >>If someone wants to write a multithreaded chess engine, where would you send >>them? >> >>I would point them to this paper, straight away. > >Sure, but what has it got to do with "bitboards and parallelism"? I suppose your question is a good one, because we would have to ask: "What is the control?" In order to answer that question clearly, we would also need to benchmark other approaches like 0x88 to see if there is any connection. >It seems he set his goal too high. Just a well-working parallel program is >already quite hard. I believe this may have been discussed before the paper >started even, as he was a poster here? > >I won't argue that these people are doing good things but to call this >scientific seems to be quite far-fetched to me. Accurate reporting of observations is good science. When it comes to the actual findings in reports, very frequently that is where some really bad science originates.
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.