Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 11:59:52 12/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 1999 at 14:53:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Did you use it in 1983 Cray Blitz?
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.