Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:53:16 12/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 1999 at 14:43:33, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote: >On December 22, 1999 at 18:37:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 22, 1999 at 17:38:27, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote: >> >>>On December 21, 1999 at 17:44:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>[big snip] >>>> >>>>Also, chess is _far_ from "embarassingly parallel". It is one of the more >>>>difficult-to-program parallel algorithms, because alpha/beta is a strictly >>>>defined sequential algorithm. Doing it in parallel invites a lot of extra >>>>work that can't be avoided. >>>> >>>[big snip] >>> >>> I was just about to begin a new thread asking "is there a quick and dirty way >>>of parallelizing a chess search?". By your post I guess that the answer is "no". >>>José. >> >> >>There are "quick and dirty" ways to do it. But they don't produce what would be >>called stellar performance... >> >>unfortunately... :) > > Where can I find about those 'quick and dirty' ways? Poor performance was to be >expected, of course. >José. The simplest idea is "young brothers wait" which has been around in various forms since 1980. It is still non-trivial to handle the locking and potential race conditions... but it is not terribily difficult to get up and going.
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.