Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: DIEP parallel in Paderborn - technical and detailed story

Author: Vincent Diepeveen

Date: 07:03:17 06/29/99

Go up one level in this thread


On June 29, 1999 at 09:07:40, Ernst A. Heinz wrote:

>On June 28, 1999 at 18:19:59, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>> [...] and that's kind of tough
>>in the parallellism i use (which is an improved cray blitz version).
>
>Vincent,
>
>Your above statement is most amusing. Nobody else would ever call his
>buggy and not even deadlock-free parallel search an "improvement".
>Why don't you first establish the soundness of your implementation
>before measuring its "phenomenal" effectiveness ...
>
>You surely know that anything is deducible from unsound hypotheses.

Yeah like all the tests done by you

>> [...]
>>
>>The speedup of the 4x400Mhz xeon with 450Mb hash compared to
>>a PII-450 NT is about 5 times for DIEP, as the speedup of 4 processors
>>for DIEP is 4.06 . The more difficult a position is the
>>bigger the speedup. Speedups over 10 times at 4 processors are not an
>>exception for DIEP. Now this is theoretical not possible will some say.
>>Dead wrong. It is.
>
>So-called "superlinear speed-up" due to cache and memory effects is indeed
>possible but highly unlikely in the case of parallelizing a *sophisticated*
>alpha-beta searcher. However, "Diep" may just not be so super-sophisticated
>as you constantly claim. Do you also get such extreme improvements for your
>sequential program version when adding processor cache and main memory on
>a single-CPU system?

>The most likely explanation for your speed-up observations is that your
>buggy and not even deadlock-free parallel search is unsound and, therefore,
>lets you deduce and measure anything ... (see above)

I get the same root scores, which is not true for most parallel programs.

Secondly i'm using nullmove, and if you only would have this tiny bit
experience with parallellism you would not write this.

Also in contradiction to most implementations of parallellism i'm not
using a recursive based search algorithm, so by definition my speedup
should already be bigger than most parallel programs.

But i bet you already don't know why that is the case.

>=Ernst=


Vincent



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.