Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 10:47:15 05/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 02, 2001 at 11:43:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 02, 2001 at 02:32:27, Chessfun wrote: > >> >> >>>A SMP version of Tiger exists. Actually existed last year. >>>A friend of mine went on a long hollyday last year, and instead of leaving his >>>dual system unused at home, he lent it to me. >>>I developped a SMP version on top of Chess Tiger 12.2. >>>But as I already told several times SMP was not a priority for me. So once I had >>>SMP working, I disabled the code in Tiger's source code. I did not erase it of >>>course, I just deactivated the relevant parts of code. >>>Since then, Tiger has evolved on many points, including a different internal >>>move coding and a different hash table structure. >>>So now I cannot just reactivate the SMP code. It will not work directly. I need >>>to reactivate it and adapt it to what has changed in the latest Tiger engines. >> >>>It's not a lot of work. The principle of the SMP algorithm does not have to be >>>rewritten, it's just a matter of adapting the code. >> >>>I just asked for a little delay in order to do that and to double check that >>>everything was working. >> >>>You can have your doubts about this SMP version, but after all if I send a SMP >>>Tiger that crashes in Cadaques, I will be the one to look stupid, not the >>>organizers of the Kramnik match. > > > >I'm willing to let a lot of hype slip by, but not _everything_. It seems you >are saying you developed an SMP search over a weekend. I have too much >experience with parallel search to believe that. I don't think I could even >steal my SMP code and move it into something like gnuchess in a single weekend, >and get it working reliably. > >Believe me, this is _not_ a weekend task. It is not a month task. It is really >not a year task. > >I would not ever believe there is an SMP Rebel until there is a windows version >of Rebel. DOS is _not_ capable of running on an SMP platform itself, much less >managing threads in any way... I have a _really_ hard time believing that a >robust SMP algorithm is a week-end project, unless I am a far worse programmer >than I believe. And unless _everybody_ else that has done one is also pretty >incompetent as well... I started with a SMP version perhaps even earlier then Stefan. Ed >> >>Actually I have seen to many of your ideas these past few months actually come >>to pass to doubt either your word that one existed, or that you could have got >>it working with the additional changes since 12.2 within a stated timeframe. >> >>It is a shame if one had existed that after April 8 at CSS the organizers were >>not contacted immediately. >> >> >>>Completing the DF-DJ match has taken a full week, and that was the amount of >>>time I have asked for. It was possible to run the DF-DJ match, and then let the >>>winner play against SMP Tiger. >> >>That really don't sound right as that implies Tiger gets a bye into the final. >>Naturally you could have run a tourney of 24 games then insert Tiger to play >>both the Deeps. >> > >I agree. The "last entry" has the best chance. > > > > >> >>>Some people have said that I have kept a "secret" around the SMP Tiger. That's >>>not really the spirit. I have no plan to commercialize the SMP Tiger in the near >>>future, so I was not trying to keep a secret in order to create a surprise. >> >> >>No I understand what your saying. You have always said SMP wasn't something you >>were in a rush to get done. But now what we actually have is a working 12.2 that >>you say you could have got ready in 2 weeks. One week prior to the match between >>the Deeps then it would be ready. >> >>With you previous statements on SMP what made you originally spend the time >>implementing it in 12.2? >> >>>Actually I am currently working on another project, which has a higher priority >>>for me, and this one can be called a secret. It will not be a secret anymore in >>>a few days. Actually I think a few people can already guess what I am working >>>on. >> >>My guess. A Tiger for Palm ! >> >>Sarah. > > >I _really_ dislike this argument. "I am not telling anybody what I am doing, >but I am certainly going to be pissed if they exclude me because they didn't >ask, not that I would have told them anyway." > >I think the exclusion of Ferret is a _far_ more serious issue that seriously >damages any credibility this "qualifier" might possibly have had...
This page took 0.01 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.