Author: walter irvin
Date: 12:22:19 10/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 1999 at 15:21:11, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>On October 16, 1999 at 11:29:11, walter irvin wrote:
>
>>first i'm going to admit that i know as much about multi processing as i do
>>about brain surgery .but it just seems to me that if a person had say 4 cpu's a
>>way to attack the problem COULD be as follows .
>>1.first divide the moves if there are 20 then each gets 5 ect
>>2.after each cpu gets to say 5 ply take the high score and go with it .disconect
>>the other 3 cpu's transfer them up the tree to 6 ply do the same thing over and
>>over to get real deep ??????
>>
>>maybe if you could get deep enough , you could turn tactics into strategy just
>>by sheer depth ???????
>
>It is more complicated than this. The moves don't take the same amount of time
>to search, some of them take a long time. And this isn't just a hypothetical
>case, it will happen in every search. In a perfect world idle processors would
>go help out on searches that are taking a long time.
>
>bruce
ok how about instead take the start position give it to cpu A .now most programs
crunch through 5 ply in a split sec .once cpu A gets to 5 ply then cpu B makes
ply 4 its start position . when cpu B gets to 5 ply , cpu C makes cpu B 4th ply
its start position . so on and so on . if it proves to be bad some where along
the line simply change the direction of the search .in simple positions make the
ply count higher , in complex positions make the ply count lower .it takes much
less time to search from 1 to 5 ply than from 10 to 15 ply or 15 to 20 ply i
think .
there may be a major flaw in my suggestion????????? but i dont know ,maybe
some one who does know could explain the flaw ???????????
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.