Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: question about fruit future plans

Author: Tord Romstad

Date: 00:28:14 09/28/05

Go up one level in this thread


On September 28, 2005 at 00:55:01, Daniel Shawul wrote:

>On September 27, 2005 at 18:20:10, Tord Romstad wrote:
>>
>>Yes.  When I get some time for chess programming again (not any time soon,
>>I'm afraid) I want to give parallell search a try.  I think it will be easier to
>>get
>>a parallell search working if I start with a very simple and minimalistic
>>search function.  MTD is much easier to code than the other popular alpha
>>beta variants, and can be implemented in very few lines of code.  It also
>>seems to be somewhat easier to parallellise, because all searches are done
>>with a null window.  This means that it is never necessary to adjust the
>>bounds for other processors when one processor finds an improvement
>>to alpha or beta.
>
>   If that is the only reason you are switching back, i think you might
>be disappointed. Especially if you use YBW you already get good enough bounds
>with the first move.

It is not really the only reason.  The general idea is that a simple search
should be easier to parallellise than a more complex search, and MTD is
much simpler than PVS.

And yes, YBW is what I will end up using, I think.

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.