Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:23:13 09/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 29, 1999 at 05:46:09, Jari Huikari wrote: >On September 29, 1999 at 04:06:36, Will Singleton wrote: > >>On September 28, 1999 at 23:25:49, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>>I am going to use a paradigm that I don't think anyone else has even tried (but >>>then again, I may be completely reinventing the wheel). > >>And, what might that be? > >I am interested too! I have also tried many things that others probably >haven't. But so far it has been *removing* the wheels... :-) Well, it has no commercial practicality, because it will suck if you don't have a pile of processors. Think of a chess program that starts not as main() but as a thread. Now, from some position, I will start up a pile of threads -- each having a problem to do analogous to a regular analysis of a position. For starters, I will have a thread analyzing the current position -- which will be permanent throughout the life of the move. Then, for each possible subsequent position, I will have a thread examining each of those. Now, after a heartbeat interval, the threads will check with a synchonization object and show what they have found so far. The "dead ends" will be abandoned and the threads will look for new tasks (e.g. for the most beneficial looking trails, they will examine subsequent positions for those positions). Obviously, this will require a *PILE* of processors to work well. However, on message passing machines or other non-SMP machines, it should work like a charm. In other words, I could get the full horsepower of one of those Silicon Graphics/Cray machines. It should also work well with a pile of Hsu's chips. On a single CPU Intel machine, it will blow chunks and die. Don't care, I don't want to sell it.
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.