Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Shredder not fair judging auto232 player results

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 21:22:03 03/28/01

Go up one level in this thread


On March 28, 2001 at 15:12:02, Peter Berger wrote:

>On March 28, 2001 at 14:12:49, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>
>>I have said this before, but I have not said it recently, so here goes:
>>
>>"auto232 is a piece of trash".
>>
>>Nothing else to be said.  When a protocol has built-in timing dependencies
>>that get fried when they are not met, such a protocol is trash.  At one point
>>Crafty worked perfectly.  Then someone got a faster CPU.  I had to add a delay
>>to not move _too_ quickly else auto232 would miss the move and the game would
>>hang.  If I probe endgame databases too hard, the interrupts somehow cause
>>auto232 to hang.
>>
>>To have to have a function "Delay()" in your code, and to have to have a
>>command "delay N" where N is in milliseconds, is terrible.  But when you then
>>have to tell users "you have to find N for yourself.  Try the default and if
>>it hangs, try other values until it doesn't" makes my software engineering
>>skin crawl.  Think about how many different values there are for up to a one
>>second delay.  :(
>>
>>And a user has to experiment to find the right one?  And then he upgrades
>>something (faster processor, faster disks, more memory, new operating system,
>>faster/slower version of the chess engine) and then he has to go Easter-egg
>>hunting again trying to find the right delay value?
>>
>>trash, trash, trash.  Can't say it enough.  :)
>
>There was an extremely nice answer to this and similar posts published in the
>German CSS magazine in an article by Chrilly Donninger some time ago.
>
>It would simply be great if it could be put to the Web ; it explained how the
>autoplayer started and developped and really opened my eyes .
>
>After reading it I understood the problems of the autoplayer and the reasons for
>them much better .
>
>I don't know who holds the rights for it but it was
>
>a.) very convincing
>b.) understandable to any non-programmer guy , too .
>
>pete


Don't believe everything you read.  I wrote serial I/O multiplexing code
using an 8080 microprocessor.  I had _no_ timing dependencies.  If you see
old pictures of Cray Blitz and my electronic chess board, you will see a
chess board with a built-in modem, all driven by a Z80 microprocessor.  That
thing talked to the cray, to the chess board, and to a dumb terminal so we could
see what the Cray was thinking.  Maintaining three separate streams of data
context.  Nary a timing issue.

There were ways to write auto232 without the timing nonsense.  It simply wasn't
done.

And as a result, it belongs in a "hefty bag" if you know what I mean.  :)



This page took 0 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.