Yes we agree. I tried to point that out by 'nps wise' (nodes per second). I guess in Go it is playouts per second. The real scaling is of course as you described.
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Michael Williams < [email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 4:50 AM, Daniel Shawul <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Oh no I actually agree with you. But I share concerns of Joona about the >> kind of algorithm to be used. >> He probably used root parallelization scheme like I just did. It scales >> almost perfectly on a cluster of 16 cpus nps wise. >> But then I realized this might not be as good as it seems because the >> different processors might not produce >> significantly different trees.. >> > > Obviously you mean the number of simulations scales almost perfectly. More > important is how well the strength scales in your parallel implementation vs > how well it scales in your sequential implementation. > > But, of course, that takes much longer to determine. > > > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > [email protected] > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
