Author: Kevin Strickland
Date: 21:50:20 04/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 21, 2002 at 00:24:46, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On April 21, 2002 at 00:06:06, Eugene Nalimov wrote: > >>First, some time ago *you* wrote that you have to use 2 copies of EGTB cache and >>decompression tables because you uses processes, not threads. I would not call >>such the design "very professional done". > >You are not nice here. I understand why. You try to distract the people. >the EGTB code has 0% influence onto the running time of the speed >test people. In openings position you don't need EGTBs!!!!!! He is simply stating again that the programming of Diep is not professionally done. Not that his egtb code is the best. > >99% of the chessgame the EGTBs are unimportant. A few years ago >when most programs sucked ass in endgames, they were very important. > >Now they aren't!!!! Not true. There are still many endgames where programs are simply clueless about the position, and the egtbs help enormously. And moron can see that. >You seem to not know at all what a chess engine is and you can't >program either. > >No way to get the estimated 10% back with threads *anyhow*. > >It's an extra instruction simply to the processor, extra indirection >simply. and that where the poor processors already get stressed >to the limit considering how many instructions they gotta try to fit in >just 64KB L1 code cache. > >Perhaps it's more than 10%, well i never measured. It's simply >EXTRA instructions which you burn. If you never measured how are you so sure he is wrong? Never bring a knife to a gun fight if you don't know how far exactly you can throw it. >You seem still in dream land. i have option to compile in the code, >the IA64 version i shipped to you has old nalimov code, >but you can't say anything about that, >as far as i know you deleted it because you can't >legally test it because you are under NDA. > >I also have my own EGTBs and it's sharing the cache. Then why use his code without permission if you have your own, and the egtbs are so unimportant? Why even have your own code? >Further your EGTBs suck so much ass from programming viewpoint that in >a possible commercial version of DIEP i won't support them anyhow. Then again why use his code if it "sucks" so bad? Kind of an oxymoron isn't it? They suck.. but I am going to use them anyhow. > >It's very bad programmed code which is slow indexing the tables >and it needs a lot of RAM for the indices too. Most programs use 20 megabytes of ram to use them. How in today's systems that almost always have more than 256 megabytes of ram is 20 megabytes even really significant? > >Apart from that i stepped away from the believe that DTM is the >way to go. w/d/l is less space and can get compressed way better. Again.. why use something that is so bad in your program? >Not the EGTB code you wrote is clever, it is the compression >code that is clever. > >You do as if your code is holy. It isn't. Only the compression >code is interesting to use for my EGTBs. I have all 5 men at 1 cdrom, >you need 7.5GB. Do I really need to repeat the question again? Take his code out and use yours if it is so much better. > >I am amazed you want to discuss EGTBs here now that i post >intel c++ compiler is faster you start about EGTBs. Actually he started his first reply about you using code that you never _got_ permission to use. He never once slandered the results you posted about the speed up of the Intel compiler. www.hookedonphonics.com might help you learn to read properly. Just a thought. Check into it. Kevin.
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.