Author: Daniel Shawul
Date: 20:18:19 11/20/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 20, 2004 at 22:33:26, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On November 19, 2004 at 23:15:44, Daniel Shawul wrote:
>
>>On November 19, 2004 at 11:28:34, Anthony Cozzie wrote:
>>
>>>Well, I also did a pretty complicated algorithm, and I designed my own. If you
>>>borrowed someone else's things might go easier for you, although I think that
>>>takes a lot of the fun out of it.
>>
>> Did you create your complicated algorithm ,after sitting back and thinking?
>>Well if that is the case you are more Genius!
>
>
>This is
>
>(a) silly;
>
>(b) poor programming
>
>You do _not_ start writing code and then try to figure out how it is going to
>work. Any good software engineering textbook/course will show you this. Coding
>is the _final_ part of the development effort, not the first. Otherwise the
>effort is multiplied by a factor of X, where X is large. As is the testing and
>debugging multiplied also...
>
Have you read what i wrote down below before replying to this message?
I said if you are going to create something , you should have something to
work on. For example it is hard for me to work/think on how i should split
search,when i don't have something to test my ideas on. You know that
chess is all about testing. something you never expected to work works when
testing and vice versa.
However i also agree i have to have some kind of design for parallel search
splitting. In my opionon , you can start coding everything up to the point you
start splitting (where the real sciece of parallel search comes). As i said
before in previous message, the thing before that is all about programming
skill,nothing special. collect your global data,create/destroy
threads,lock/unlock etc.
>
>
>
>> What i did was make something
>>which searches in parallel, and then something which can make splits at points.
>>Up to this point there is hardly any alogorithm,you just have to have good MT
>>programming background. Then my own alogorithm of splitting at all points. And
>>then i tried scott's
>> - split at 1st move if some criteria is met
>> - split at 3rd move if some criteria is met
>>Now i can think of a better algorithm of my OWN as you did. But without having
>>something to work on , planning is ridiclous.
>>You are certainly a better programmer than me and i am no where to compete with
>>you. But don't try to frustrate others just because you have one.
>>
>>>It is also possible you are simply more
>>>talented than I am at this. However, I wouldn't say that it works until you
>>>have run it at a dual for a week or so with no problems. I *thought* I had mine
>>>working after about two weeks of implementation :) I think maybe now I'm down
>>>to only 1 bug that seems to only occur on ICC.
>>
>> Fabien or Tord may be good candidates for you if only they want to make their
>>engine parallel.
>>
>>>
>>>The next task for you is to measure the speedup you get.
>>
>> speed up? are you kidding? I just sent my version to Dann to test
>>if it works at all(with 0.1% probability). Anyway thanks for asking!
>>
>>> BTW, I do have to take
>>>back my comment about ABDADA. After talking with some people, it seems like
>>>ABDADA gives a _really_ poor speedup (<1.3 or so, which is barely worth doing).
>>>Of course, Scott's algorithm probably works better. Scott, what kind of
>> Anthony READ what i wrote above!
>>daniel
>>
>>speedup
>>>do you get?
>>>
>>>anthony
This page took 0.01 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.