Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 05:49:58 03/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 29, 2001 at 00:22:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. :) Even better Bob, i don't have a single problem if i play with diep at the auto232 player. No errors, no timeouts no weird behaviours. Problems happen when you add a bunch of commercial programs. Note DIEP has had very little problems in general with the chess tiger and shredder interface. They play on and on and on without a single problem.
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.