When should I consider parallel search ?
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 234
- Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 11:54 pm
When should I consider parallel search ?
My engine could Currently fall anywhere between 2700:2900 by my estimate on the CCRL single threaded list , when should I consider converting to a parallel search implementation ? I haven't done any optimization yet whether to the search or the evaluation and I haven't implemented any razoring
-
- Posts: 2554
- Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 2:00 pm
- Location: Czech Republic
- Full name: Martin Sedlak
Re: When should I consider parallel search ?
What kind of question is that? Are you able to make your own decisions?
Do whatever you want and when you see fit.
LazySMP is trivial to implement and can be done in less than a week (even less if you can afford to work fulltime on it).
Do whatever you want and when you see fit.
LazySMP is trivial to implement and can be done in less than a week (even less if you can afford to work fulltime on it).
-
- Posts: 27790
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:06 am
- Location: Amsterdam
- Full name: H G Muller
Re: When should I consider parallel search ?
Never consider parallel search. It is an inefficient usage of resources.
-
- Posts: 2204
- Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 10:24 am
- Location: Andorra
Re: When should I consider parallel search ?
?hgm wrote:Never consider parallel search. It is an inefficient usage of resources.
Daniel José - http://www.andscacs.com
-
- Posts: 27790
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:06 am
- Location: Amsterdam
- Full name: H G Muller
Re: When should I consider parallel search ?
Scaling is never perfect, the various threads will always duplicate some of each other's work. So it is more efficient to run single threaded.
-
- Posts: 2204
- Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 10:24 am
- Location: Andorra
Re: When should I consider parallel search ?
As you sure know an engine playing with 2 cpus play stronger than playing with only one cpu Or maybe I did not understand where you want to go.hgm wrote:Scaling is never perfect, the various threads will always duplicate some of each other's work. So it is more efficient to run single threaded.
Daniel José - http://www.andscacs.com
-
- Posts: 7216
- Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 10:31 am
Re: When should I consider parallel search ?
It's about nodes per euro.
-
- Posts: 2204
- Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 10:24 am
- Location: Andorra
Re: When should I consider parallel search ?
I'm about elo per euroHenk wrote:It's about nodes per euro.
Daniel José - http://www.andscacs.com
-
- Posts: 27790
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:06 am
- Location: Amsterdam
- Full name: H G Muller
Re: When should I consider parallel search ?
But you can run twice as many engines that use 1 CPU on the same hardware. If you let each of those think twice as long, they are each stronger than the 2-CPU engine. And you still get the same number of moves per second.cdani wrote:As you sure know an engine playing with 2 cpus play stronger than playing with only one cpu Or maybe I did not understand where you want to go.
Letting them think longer is a more efficient way to get more Elo than parallel search.
-
- Posts: 2204
- Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 10:24 am
- Location: Andorra
Re: When should I consider parallel search ?
Sure, only that you will not be able to do it in a tournamenthgm wrote: Letting them think longer is a more efficient way to get more Elo than parallel search.
Daniel José - http://www.andscacs.com