Author: Lance Perkins
Date: 14:10:01 07/13/04
Go up one level in this thread
How about book and no-book. 64-bit and 32-bit machines. With eval and w/out eval. With EGTB and w/out EGTB. With in-line ASM and w/out in-line ASM (i.e., pure C/C++). Intel compiler only and GCC compiler only. On and on, and on. You see, support for advanced hardware feature (like multi-processor), use of advanced software development techniques (like the use of assembly language), and use of advanced algorithms (like an aggressive but safe prunning), all require "development work" and distinguishes good chess programs from the bad ones. One can also add tons of code to support the best hardware feature and implement the most exotic algorithms and still end up with a bad chess engine. OK, enough rambling from me. You get the idea. On July 13, 2004 at 13:11:35, Jorge Pichard wrote: >On July 13, 2004 at 11:55:35, Omid David Tabibi wrote: > >>On July 13, 2004 at 11:23:29, Eydun Lamhauge wrote: >> >>>How strong is Ruffian compared to the engines that participated in WCCC 2004? >>>Would Ruffian have made a top three position? >> >>No. Top 5 positions were already taken by those running on quad opterons. >>Assuming Ruffian would have participated with a non-parallel version, it would >>have reached the 6th place at best. > > >To avoid any further disadvantage for the single processor programs, I recommend >two group of winners for next year! > > >Trophies for the SMP programs And for the single processor programs > First group Second group > > 1st Deep Junior 1st Jonny > 2nd Shredder 2nd Falcon > 3rd Diep 3rd IsiChess > > >Jorge
This page took 0.05 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.