Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:46:26 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"? > >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. > >-- >GCP The standards for a Master's thesis is far different from the standards for a Ph.D. dissertation. A Master's thesis doesn't even have to have _original_ work in it, several are just "reviews" of existing technology or whatever...
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.